part did you play in it?

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, if you are going into that, it is now 5 o’clock; and I think we had better adjourn now until Monday morning.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 29 April 1946 at 1000 hours._]

ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTEENTH DAY Monday, 29 April 1946

_Morning Session_

DR. MARX: Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Tribunal: Before continuing with questions to the Defendant Streicher, may I ask permission to make a statement?

On Friday afternoon, Herr Streicher referred to a case, namely, that press event which concerned me and my professional attitude. I thereupon took the opportunity to refer to this case in my statement as well, and I pointed out that at that time I had had to ask for the protection of the Tribunal against this damaging attack on my work and that this protection was given me very graciously. On that occasion and in that extemporary explanation I used the expression “newspaper writer.” I used it exclusively with reference to the particular journalist who had written the article in question in that Berlin newspaper regarding my person and my activity as a lawyer.

By no means did I express, or mean to express, a reference to the press in general. It was far from my intention in any way to attack the press, the group of press experts, and particularly not the members of the world press who are active here; nor did I wish to injure their professional honor.

The reason for this statement of mine is a statement made on the radio, according to which I, the attorney Marx, had attacked and disparaged the press in general. I am, of course, aware of the significance of the press. I know precisely what the press has to contribute and I should be the last person to fail to recognize fully the extremely difficult work and the responsible task of the press. May I, therefore, quite publicly before this Tribunal ask that this statement be accepted; and may I ask the gentlemen of the press to receive my statement in the spirit in which it is made, namely, that this was merely a special comment on that particular gentleman and not in any way on the entire press. That is what I wanted to say.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, the Tribunal understood your statement the other day in the sense in which you have now explained it.

DR. MARX: Yes. With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall then continue with my examination.

Witness, what aims did you pursue with your speeches and your articles in _Der Stürmer_?

STREICHER: The speeches and articles which I wrote were meant to inform the public on a question which appeared to me one of the most important questions. I did not intend to agitate or inflame but to enlighten.

DR. MARX: Apart from your weekly journal, and particularly after the Party came into power, were there any other publications in Germany which treated the Jewish question in an anti-Semitic way?

STREICHER: Anti-Semitic publications have existed in Germany for centuries. A book I had, written by Dr. Martin Luther, was, for instance, confiscated. Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants’ dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the Prosecution. In the book _The Jews and Their Lies_, Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent’s brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them...

DR. MARX: Herr Streicher, that is not my question, I am asking you to answer my question in accordance with the way I put it. Please answer now with “yes” or “no,” whether there were...

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I should like to interpose an objection to this method of answering unresponsively and with speeches here. We are utterly unable in this procedure to make objections when answers are not responsive to questions. We have already got into this case, through Streicher’s volunteered speeches, an attack on the United States which will take considerable evidence to answer if we are to answer it. It seems to me very improper that a witness should do anything but make a responsive answer to a question, so that we may keep these proceedings from getting into issues that have nothing to do with them. It will not help this Tribunal, in deciding Streicher’s guilt or innocence, to go into questions which he has raised here against us—matters that are perfectly capable of explanation, if we take time to do it.

It seems to me that this witness should be admonished, and admonished so that he will understand it, if that is possible, that he is to answer questions and stop, so that we can know and object in time to orations on irrelevant subjects.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, will you try, when you put the questions to the witness, to stop him if he is not answering the questions you put to him?

DR. MARX: Yes, Mr. President. I was just in the process...

THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Streicher, you understand, you have heard what has been said and you will understand that the Tribunal cannot put up with your long speeches which are not answers to questions which we put to you.

DR. MARX: I will now repeat the question and I want you to answer the question first with “yes” or “no” and then to add a brief explanation regarding the question.

Apart from your weekly journal, and particularly after the Party came into power, were there other publications in Germany which dealt with the Jewish question in an anti-Semitic way?

STREICHER: Yes, even before the coming to power there were in every Gau weekly journals that were anti-Semitic and one daily paper called the _Völkischer Beobachter_ in Munich. Apart from that, there were a number of periodicals which were not working directly for the Party. There was also anti-Semitic literature. After the seizure of power, the daily press was co-ordinated, and now the Party found itself in control of some 3,000 daily papers, numerous weekly journals, and all type of periodicals; and orders were given by the Führer that every newspaper should provide enlightening articles on the Jewish question. The anti-Semitic enlightenment was, therefore, after the seizure of power, carried out on a very large scale in the daily press as well as in the weekly journals, periodicals, and books. Consequently, _Der Stürmer_ did not stand alone in its enlightening activity. But I want to state quite openly that I make the claim of having treated the question in the most popular way.

DR. MARX: Were the directives necessary for this issued by a central office, say, for instance, by the National Socialist press service?

STREICHER: Yes. The Propaganda Ministry in Berlin had a National Socialist press service. In this service, in every issue, there were a number of enlightening articles on the Jewish question. During the war the Führer personally gave the order that the press, far more than previously, should publish enlightening articles on the Jewish question.

DR. MARX: The Prosecution accuse you of having contributed indirectly to mass murders by incitation, and according to the minutes of 10 January 1946, the following charge has been made against you: No government in the world could have undertaken a policy of mass extermination, as it was done here, without having behind it a nation which agreed to it; and you are supposed to have brought that about. What have you to say to this?

STREICHER: To that I have the following to say: Incitation means to bring a person into condition of excitement which causes him to perform an irresponsible act. Did the contents of _Der Stürmer_ incite, this is the question? Briefly stated, the question must be answered, “What did _Der Stürmer_ write?” Several volumes of _Der Stürmer_ are available here, but one would have to look at all the issues of 20 years in order to answer that question exhaustively. During those 20 years I published enlightening articles dealing with the race, dealing with what the Jews themselves write in the Old Testament, in their history, what they write in the Talmud. I printed excerpts from Jewish historical works, works for instance, written by a Professor Dr. Graetz and by a Jewish scholar, Gutnot.

In _Der Stürmer_ no editorial appeared written by me or written by anyone of my main co-workers in which I did not include quotations from the ancient history of the Jews, from the Old Testament or from Jewish historical works of recent times.

It is important, and I must emphasize that I pointed out in all articles, that prominent Jews, leading authors themselves, admitted that which during 20 years as author and public speaker I publicly proclaimed.

Allow me to add that it is my conviction that the contents of _Der Stürmer_ as such were not incitation. During the whole 20 years I never wrote in this connection, “Burn Jewish houses down; beat them to death.” Never once did such an incitement appear in _Der Stürmer_.

Now comes the question: Is there any proof to be furnished that any deed was done from the time _Der Stürmer_ first appeared, a deed of which one can say that it was the result of an incitement? As a deed due to an incitement I might mention a pogrom. That is a spontaneous deed when sections of the people suddenly rise up and kill other people. During the 20 years no pogrom took place in Germany, during the 20 years, as far as I know, no Jew was killed. No murder took place, of which one could have said, “This is the result of an incitement which was caused by anti-Semitic authors or public speakers.”

Gentlemen, we are in Nuremberg. In the past there was a saying that nowhere were the Jews in Germany so safe and so unmolested as in Nuremberg.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, is not this becoming a rather lengthy speech?

DR. MARX: Streicher, you have explained this now sufficiently, so that one can form an opinion—you mean, “I have not incited in such a way that any spontaneous action carried out against the Jews by any group of people or by the masses resulted”?

STREICHER: May I make a remark in this connection? Here we are concerned with the most serious, the most decisive accusation raised against me by the Prosecution, and here I ask the Tribunal to permit me to defend myself against it objectively. Is it not of tremendous significance if I can establish that in Nuremberg, of all places, no murder took place, no single murder and no pogrom either? That is a fact.

THE PRESIDENT: You have already said it. I have just written down, before I intervened, saying that no Jews have been killed not only in Nuremberg but anywhere else as a result of your incitement.

DR. MARX: Witness, we shall make reference to these demonstrations of 9 and 10 November 1938 later.

STREICHER: Yes, but may I continue? The Indictment accuses me of having indirectly contributed by incitation to mass murders, and I ask to be allowed to make a statement on this: Something has been ascertained today about which I myself did not know. I learned of the will left behind by the Führer, and I assume that a few moments before his death the Führer told the world the truth in that will. In it he says that mass killings were carried out by his order; that the mass killings were a reprisal.

Thus it is demonstrated that I, myself, cannot have been a participant in the incredible events which occurred here.

DR. MARX: Finished?

STREICHER: Yes. You said that the Indictment accuses me in saying that these mass killings could never have taken place if behind the Government and behind the leaders of the State there had not been an informed people.

Gentlemen, first of all, the question, “Did the German people really know what was happening during the years of the war?” We know today...

THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, that is a matter of argument and not a matter upon which you can give evidence. You can say what you knew.

STREICHER: I was a part of that nation during the war. During the war I lived alone in the country. For 5 years I never left my farm. I was watched by the Gestapo. From 1939 on I have been forbidden by the Führer to speak.

DR. MARX: Herr Streicher, we will certainly come to that later. I have interrogated you now on this question, and I will proceed with my questions. The other will come later.

STREICHER: But I wish to state that I had no opportunity—that is why I said this—to learn what was actually going on.

I first heard of the mass murders and mass killings at Mondorf when I was in prison. But I am stating here that if I had been told that 2 or 3 million people had been killed, then I would not have believed it. I would not have believed that it was technically possible to kill so many people; and on the basis of the entire attitude and psychology of the Führer, as I knew it, I would not have believed that mass killings, to the extent to which they have taken place, could have taken place. Finished.

DR. MARX: The Prosecution also raise the charge against you that it was the task of the educators of the nation to educate the people to murder and to poison them with hatred, that you had devoted yourself particularly to these tasks. What do you want to answer to this charge?

STREICHER: That is an allegation. We educated no murderers. The contents of the articles which I wrote could not have educated murderers. No murders took place, and that is proof that we did not educate murderers. What happened during the war—well, I certainly did not educate the Führer. The Führer issued the order on his own initiative.

DR. MARX: I now continue. The Prosecution further assert that the Himmler-Kaltenbrunner groups and other SS leaders would have had no one to carry out their orders to kill, if you had not made that propaganda and if you had not conducted the education of the German people along these lines. Will you make a statement on that?

STREICHER: I do not believe that the National Socialists mentioned read _Der Stürmer_ every week. I do not believe that those who received the order from the Führer to carry out killings or to pass on the order to kill, were led to do this by my periodical. Hitler’s book, _Mein Kampf_, existed, and the content of that book was the authority, the spiritual authority; nor do I believe that the persons mentioned read that book and carried out the order on the strength of it. Based on my knowledge of what went on in the Movement, I am convinced that if the Führer gave an order everyone acted upon it; and I state here quite openly that maybe fate has been kind to me. If the Führer had ordered me to do such things, I would not have been able to kill; but perhaps today I would face some indictment which it has not been possible to lodge against me. Perhaps because fate has taken a hand in this. But the conditions were thus, that the Führer had such a power of hypnotic suggestion that the entire people believed in him; his way was so unusual that, if one knows this fact, one can understand why everyone who received an order acted. And thus I want to reject as untrue and incorrect what was here thought fit to assert against me.

DR. MARX: What do you know about the general attitude of Adolf Hitler to the Jewish question? And when did Hitler first become hostile to the Jews, according to your knowledge?

STREICHER: Even before Adolf Hitler became publicly known at all I had occupied myself journalistically with anti-Semitic articles. However, on the strength of his book, _Mein Kampf_, I first learned about the historic connections of the Jewish problem. Adolf Hitler wrote his book in the prison in Landsberg. Anyone who knows this book will know that Hitler many years back, either by study of anti-Semitic literature or through other experiences, must have developed this knowledge in himself in order then to be able to write that book in prison in so short a time. In other words, in his book Adolf Hitler stated to the world public that he was anti-Semitic and that he knew the Jewish problem through and through. He himself often said to me personally...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, the book _Mein Kampf_ is in evidence, and it speaks for itself.

STREICHER: I will now answer your question, not with reference to the book. You asked me whether Adolf Hitler had discussed the Jewish problem with me. The answer is “yes.” Adolf Hitler always discussed the Jewish problem in connection with Bolshevism. It is perhaps of importance in answering that question to ask whether Adolf Hitler wanted a war with Russia. Did he know long in advance that a war would come, or not? When he was with us Adolf Hitler spoke of Stalin as a man whom he honored as a man of action, but that he was actually surrounded by Jewish leaders, and that Bolshevism...

DR. MARX: Herr Streicher, that is going too far again. The question which I put was quite exact, and I am asking you not to go so far afield. You have heard the Tribunal object to it, and in the interest of not delaying the proceedings you must not go into so many details. You must not make speeches.

GEN. RUDENKO: Mr. President, I believe that some time ago Mr. Justice Jackson remarked, quite justly, quite reasonably, that the Defendant Streicher became so intoxicated by his own speeches that he did not answer the questions put to him or the charges made against him. I therefore invite the attention of the Tribunal to this fact and suggest that the defendant abstain from making lengthy speeches and merely give brief replies to the charges brought against him.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you go on, Dr. Marx, and try to keep the witness to an answer to the questions which you have no doubt prepared.

DR. MARX: Very well, Mr. President.

STREICHER: May I, please, as a defendant, say a few words, here? The question was...

THE PRESIDENT: [_Interposing._] No, you may not. You will answer the questions, please.

DR. MARX: Next question. Is there reason for the assumption that Hitler, when he decided to have the Jews in Europe killed in masses, was subject to any influence, or what is to be considered the motive for that dreadful decision?

STREICHER: The Führer could not be influenced. As I know the Führer, if somebody had gone to him and said that Jews should be killed, then he would have turned him down. And if, during the war, somebody had gone to him and said, “I have learned that you are giving the order that mass killings are to be carried out,” then he would have turned that man down too. I therefore answer your question by saying that the Führer could not be influenced.

DR. MARX: In other words, you want to say that the decision in this matter was made entirely on his own initiative.

STREICHER: I have already said that that becomes clear from his will.

DR. MARX: In August 1938 the main synagogue in Nuremberg was demolished. Was this done on your orders?

STREICHER: Yes. In my Gau there were approximately 15 synagogues, in Nuremberg one main synagogue, a somewhat smaller one, and I think several other prayer rooms. The main synagogue stood in the outskirts of the medieval Reichsstadt. Even before 1933, during the so-called period of struggle, when we still had the other government, I stated publicly during a meeting that it was a disgrace that there should be placed in the Old City such an oriental monstrosity of a building. After the seizure of power I told the Lord Mayor that he should have the synagogue torn down, and at the same time the planetarium. I might point out that after the World War, in the middle of the park grounds laid out for the recreation of the citizens, a planetarium had been built, an ugly brick building. I gave the order to tear down that building and said that the main synagogue, too, should be razed. If it had been my intention to deprive the Jews of their synagogue as a church or if I had wanted to give a general signal, then I would have given the order, after the seizure of power, that every synagogue in my Gau should be torn down. Then I would likewise have had all the synagogues in Nuremberg torn down. But it is a fact that in the spring of 1938 only the main synagogue was torn down; the synagogue in the Essenweinstrasse, in the new city, remained untouched. That the order was then given in November of that year to set fire to the synagogues, that is no fault of mine.

DR. MARX: In other words, you want to say that you did not order the tearing down of this building for anti-Semitic reasons but because it did not conform to the architectural style of the city?

STREICHER: For reasons of city architecture. I wanted to submit a picture to the Tribunal on this, but I have not received any.

DR. MARX: Yes, we have a picture.

STREICHER: But you cannot see the synagogue in it. I do not know whether the Tribunal want to see the picture. The picture actually shows only the old houses, but the front of the synagogue facing the Hans-Sachs-Platz is not visible. I do not know whether I may submit the picture to the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, the photograph can be put in. Let us see the photograph.

DR. MARX: In that case, I will submit it to the Tribunal as evidence and I am asking you to accept it accordingly.

THE PRESIDENT: What will it be, exhibit what?

DR. MARX: I cannot say at the moment, Mr. President. I shall take the liberty of stating the number later and for the moment I confine myself to submitting it. I could not present it any earlier because I had not come into possession of this picture. It was only in the last days...

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.

DR. MARX: In your measure in connection with the main synagogue did you rely on any statements of art experts?

STREICHER: I had frequent opportunities to discuss the subject with architects. Every architect said that there must have been a city council which had no feeling whatsoever for city architecture, that it was impossible to explain it.

These statements were not in any way directed against the synagogue as a Jewish church, but rather against such a building in this part of the city. Strangers, too, whom I guided—for on Party rally days I used to accompany British and American people across the Hans-Sachs-Platz—and I remember only one case where when I said “Do you not notice anything?” that the person did not. But all other strangers said “How could that building get there in the midst of these medieval buildings?” I could also have submitted a book, written in 1877, which is in the prison library, where a Professor Berneis, who was famous, wrote at that time to the author, Uhde, in Switzerland, that he had now seen the Sachs Platz...

DR. MARX: Herr Streicher, that is enough now. In other words, you have indicated that you believed you could rely on the judgment of architects who seemed to you to be authorities?

STREICHER: Yes.

DR. MARX: At the time when the synagogue was demolished, did you make a speech?

STREICHER: Yes, but I want to point out that the Prosecution have submitted an article, a report from the _Tageszeitung_, that was written by a simple young man. I want to state that this article does not contain a true representation of the statements which I made.

DR. MARX: I now come to the demonstrations on the night of 9 to 10 November 1938. What can you say concerning those demonstrations and what role did you play in that connection? Were those demonstrations initiated by the population?

STREICHER: Every year the Gauleiter and SA and SS leaders met the Führer in Munich on the occasion of the historic day of 9 November. We sat down to dinner in the old Town Hall, and it was customary for the Führer to make a short speech after the dinner. On 9 November 1938, I did not feel very well. I participated in the dinner and then I left; I drove back to Nuremberg and went to bed. Toward midnight I was awakened. My chauffeur told me that the SA leader Von Obernitz wanted to talk to the Gauleiter. I received him and he said the following: “Gauleiter, you had left already when the Minister of Propaganda, Dr. Goebbels, took the floor and said”—I can now repeat it only approximately—“said, ‘Legation Counsellor Vom Rath has been murdered in Paris. That is now the second murder abroad of a prominent National Socialist. This murder is not the murder by the Jew, Grünspan; this is rather the execution of a deed which has been desired by all Jewry. Something should now be done.’” I do not know now whether Goebbels said the Führer had ordered it; I remember only that Von Obernitz told me that Goebbels had stated the synagogues were to be set on fire; and I cannot now remember exactly, but I think he told me that the windows of Jewish business houses were to be smashed and that houses were to be demolished.

Then I said to Obernitz—for I was surprised—“Obernitz, I think it is wrong that synagogues be set on fire, and at this moment I think it is wrong that Jewish business houses be demolished; I think these demonstrations are wrong. If people are let loose during the night, deeds can be perpetrated for which one cannot be responsible.” I said to Obernitz that I considered the setting on fire of synagogues particularly wrong because abroad and even among the German people the opinion might arise that National Socialism had now started the fight against religion. Obernitz replied, “I have the order.” I said, “Obernitz, I will not assume any responsibility here.” Obernitz left and the action took place. What I have said under oath here I have previously stated in several interrogations; and my chauffeur will confirm it, for he was witness to this night’s conversation, and shortly afterwards when he went to bed told his wife what he had heard up there in my bedroom.

DR. MARX: Have you finished?

STREICHER: Yes, but you asked another question...

DR. MARX: Yes, whether it was a spontaneous act of force initiated by the masses of the people?

STREICHER: Yes. In the National Socialist press there appeared after this action an article to the same effect, which stated that a spontaneous demonstration of the people had revenged the murder of Herr Vom Rath. It had therefore been deliberately ordered from Berlin that there should be a public statement to the effect that the demonstration of 1938 was spontaneous. That this was not the case I was also able to learn in Nuremberg; and it is remarkable that the indignation at what had happened during those demonstrations expressed itself even here in Nuremberg, even among the Party members.

The Prosecution have submitted an article which is a report on a speech which I made on 10 November; and that is a remarkable piece of evidence of the fact that the people were against this action. I was forced, because of the atmosphere which prevailed in Nuremberg, to make a public speech and say that one should not have so much sympathy for the Jews. Such was the affair of November 1938.

Perhaps it might also be important for you to ask me how I, of all people, happened to oppose the idea of these demonstrations.

DR. MARX: I thought you had explained that already. Very well. Who gave the order then for the burning down of the synagogue still standing on Essenweinstrasse?

STREICHER: I do not know who gave the order; I believe it was SA leader Von Obernitz. I do not know the details.

DR. MARX: A further question: Did you yourself express publicly your disapproval of these brutalities?

STREICHER: Yes. In a small circle of leading Party members I said what I have always said, what I have always said publicly: I stated that this was wrong. I talked to lawyers during a meeting—I do not know whether my defense counsel himself was there—I believe it was as early as November 1938 that I stated, to the Nuremberg lawyers at a meeting, that what had happened here during that action, was wrong; that it was wrong as regards the people and as regards foreign countries. I said then that anyone who knew the Jewish question as I knew it would understand why I considered that demonstration a mistake. I do not know whether this was reported to the Führer at that time, but after November 1938 I was never again called to the Hotel Deutscher Hof when the Führer came to Nuremberg. Whether this was the reason I do not know, but at any rate I did criticize these demonstrations publicly.

DR. MARX: It is assumed by the Prosecution that in 1938 a more severe treatment of the Jews was introduced. Is that true, and what is the explanation?

STREICHER: Yes. In 1938 the Jewish question entered a new phase; that is shown, indeed, by the demonstration. I myself can only say in this connection that there was no preliminary conference on this subject. I assume that the Führer, impulsive as he was and acting on the spur of the moment, got around probably only on 9 November to saying to Dr. Goebbels, “Tell the organizations that the synagogues must be burned down.” As I said, I myself did not attend such a meeting; and I do not know what happened to bring about this acceleration.

DR. MARX: On 12 November 1938 the decree was published according to which the Jews were to be eliminated from the economic life of the country. Was there a connection between the orders for the demonstrations of 9 November and that further decree of 12 November 1938, and would that decree be due to the same reason?

STREICHER: Well, here I can say only that I am convinced that there was a connection. The order, rather the decrees, which were to have such an extensive effect in the economic field, came from Berlin. We did not have any conference. I do not remember any Gauleiter meetings in which that was discussed. I do not know of any. That happened just as everything happened; we were not previously informed.

DR. MARX: How was it that not you, but the Codefendant Rosenberg, was given the task of attending to this matter?

STREICHER: Rosenberg was the spiritual trustee of the Movement, but he was not given this particular task nor the task of the demonstration nor that of economic matters.

DR. MARX: No, we are talking of different points. Rosenberg was the one given the task by the Leaders of the State of taking care, as it was called, of racial-political and other enlightenment tasks; and you were not. How can that be explained? How can it be explained that you were not chosen?

STREICHER: Rosenberg, as he himself said, had met the Führer very early and was anyway, because of his knowledge, intellectually suited to take over this task. I devoted myself more to popular enlightenment.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, he has told us that he wasn’t given the task. Unless he had some communication with Rosenberg he can’t tell us anything more about it except that he wasn’t given the task. All the rest is mere comment and argument.

DR. MARX: Yes.

[_Turning to the defendant._] I now put the next question to you: Was an order issued during the year 1939 forbidding you to make speeches?

STREICHER: Yes. In the autumn of 1939 my enemies went so far that the Führer, without my being asked beforehand, issued a written order through Party Member Hess forbidding me to make speeches. The threat of immediate arrest was made should I act against this order.

DR. MARX: Is it also correct that in 1938 an effort was evidently made to stop further publication of _Der Stürmer_, I mean in government circles?

STREICHER: Such intentions existed quite often, and also at that time. Perhaps I might refer to two other documents in this connection in order to save time.

The Prosecution have submitted copies of a letter from Himmler and Baldur von Schirach. Here I can give quite a simple explanation right now. At that time, in 1939, there were intentions of prohibiting _Der Stürmer_. Bormann had even issued some such order. Then the Chief Editor of _Der Stürmer_ wrote to prominent members of the Party, asking them to state their opinion about _Der Stürmer_. And thereupon letters were also received from Himmler and Von Schirach. Altogether, I think about 15 letters were received from prominent members of the Movement; they were merely kind replies to an inquiry.

DR. MARX: That is sufficient. Is it true that at the outbreak of the war you were not made Armed Forces District Commissioner (Wehrkreis-Kommissar) in your own Gau?

STREICHER: Yes.

DR. MARX: How can that be explained?

STREICHER: Well, maybe that is not so important; that is how conditions were at the time. There were certain personal feelings, _et cetera_; it is of no significance. At any rate, I did not become Armed Forces District Commissioner.

DR. MARX: The Prosecution have stated that after 1 September 1939 the persecution of the Jews increased more and more. What was that due to?

STREICHER: That question only the Führer could answer; I cannot.

DR. MARX: But do you not think this had something to do with the outbreak of war?

STREICHER: The Führer always said so in public, yes.

DR. MARX: A proceeding was instituted against you before the Supreme Party Court. How did that happen? What was the development and the result of that trial?

STREICHER: I am grateful that I have an opportunity to state quite briefly before the International Military Tribunal something which I have had to keep silent about up to now because of a Führer order. I myself had instituted proceedings against myself before the Supreme Party Court in order to defend myself against people who were denouncing me. I was being accused...

THE PRESIDENT: Is the defendant talking about some order which Hitler gave that he was not to be allowed to speak or is he talking about something else?

You remember, Dr. Marx, that certain allegations were struck out of the record. If he is talking about those, it seems to me that we have got nothing whatever to do with it. Am I right in recollecting that something was struck out of the record?

DR. MARX: Yes it was, Mr. President, but only certain things from the Göring report were struck out, only the one passage which concerned the affair with the three young persons; but everything else was retained by the Prosecution. The Defense, therefore, must be able to take a stand in regard to these points, if the Prosecution do not say that they are dropping the entire Göring report; and in that connection this proceeding before the Supreme Party Court also plays a part. He can make a brief statement about it.

THE PRESIDENT: All right.

DR. MARX: Witness, be brief.

STREICHER: Yes. It is important then that I instituted proceedings against myself; about 10 points were involved which had been raised against me, among them a matter referring to some shares. An affidavit exists from the Göring report which states that I had been found guilty. May I state here that the trial was never completed and no sentence was passed.

That is the answer to the question which you have put to me.

DR. MARX: The matter referring to shares, does that have something to do with the shares of the Mars works?

STREICHER: We will come to it later. It was not the main point.

DR. MARX: And then you were ordered to remain permanently at the Pleikershof? Were you under the guard of the Gestapo there, and was there also a check-up as far as visitors were concerned?

STREICHER: It is not correct that I was ordered to stay at the Pleikershof. What is true is that I retired voluntarily with the intention of never again being active in the Movement. It is correct that the Gestapo watched me, and every visitor was called to the police station and interrogated as to his conversations he had had. That is a fact.

DR. MARX: During your stay at the Pleikershof did you have any connections or correspondence with any leading personalities of the Party or State?

STREICHER: No. As far as prominent persons of the Movement and of the State are concerned, I had no correspondence whatsoever with them; that is why the Prosecution could hardly find any letters. I never stated in letters my opinion on the Jewish problem or on other matters. I shall have to state then, in order to answer your question exactly, that I had no correspondence with prominent persons of the Party and the State.

DR. MARX: After the outbreak of the war, were you informed of or consulted in any way on any measures intended against the Jews?

STREICHER: No.

DR. MARX: What were your relations to Himmler? Did you know him at all closely? Did you ever speak to him about measures against the Jews or did he talk about intended mass executions of the Jews?

STREICHER: I knew Himmler just as I knew the SA leaders, or other SS leaders. I knew him from common meetings, Gauleiter conferences, _et cetera_. I did not have a single political discussion with Himmler, except in society when he may have touched on this or that, in the presence of others. The last time I saw Himmler was in Nuremberg when he spoke to the officers in their mess. When that was I cannot say exactly but I think it was shortly before the war. I never had a talk with him on the Jewish question. He himself was, of course, well informed on this question. He had an organ of his own called the _Schwarze Korps_. And what his inner attitude toward me was is something that I did not discover until my stay on the farm. There were denunciations against me which reached him. It was stated that I was being too humane with the French prisoners. Shortly after that I received a letter in which he reproached me and made serious representations against me. I gave no answer at all. Without having made any previous inquiries with me as to whether these denunciations were true, he made a serious charge against me; and I state quite openly that it was actually my feeling at the time that I might possibly lose my liberty through arrest. These were my relations with Himmler.

DR. MARX: That is enough.

During this Trial you have heard mentioned the names of a great number of Higher SS and Police Leaders who played a leading part in the Jewish persecutions, as for instance, Heydrich, Eichmann, Ohlendorf, and so on. Were there any connections between you and one of these Higher SS and Police Leaders?

STREICHER: I heard the names you have mentioned for the first time during an interrogation here. I did not know these men; they may well have seen me, but there was never a discussion involving me and the senior SS or SA leaders. Furthermore, I never was in any of Himmler’s offices in Berlin, or any Ministry in Berlin. Thus, no conference ever took place.

DR. MARX: The Prosecution have drawn the conclusion from numerous articles in _Der Stürmer_, that as early as 1942 and 1943 you must have had knowledge of the mass executions of Jews which had taken place.

What statement can you make on this, and when, and in what way, did you hear of the mass executions of Jews which took place in the East?

STREICHER: I had subscribed to the Jewish weekly that appeared in Switzerland. Sometimes in that weekly there were intimations that something was not quite in order; and I think it was at the end of 1943 or 1944—I believe 1944—that an article appeared in the Jewish weekly, in which it said that in the East—I think it was said in Poland—Jews were disappearing in masses. I then made reference to this in an article which perhaps will be presented to me later. But I state quite frankly that the Jewish weekly in Switzerland did not represent for me an authoritative source, that I did not believe everything in it. This article did not quote figures; it did not talk about mass executions, but only about disappearances.

DR. MARX: Have you finished?

STREICHER: Yes.

DR. MARX: Did you make proposals in _Der Stürmer_ for the solution of the Jewish question, during the war?

STREICHER: Yes.

DR. MARX: And in what sense?

STREICHER: As I said yesterday, I represented the point of view that the Jewish question could be solved only internationally, since there were Jews in all countries. For that reason we published articles in my weekly journal referring to the Zionist demand for the creation of a Jewish state, such as had also been provided for or indicated in the Balfour Declaration. There were therefore two possibilities for a solution, a preliminary solution within the countries through appropriate laws; and then the creation of a Jewish state.

During the war, I think it was in 1941 or 1942, we had written another article—we were subject to the Berlin censorship—and the censorship office sent back the proof submitted with the remark that the article must not be published in which we had proposed Madagascar as the place for the establishment of a Jewish state. The political relations with France were given as the reason why that article should not be published.

DR. MARX: If you had expected that question to be solved by mass executions, would you then too have written this article?

STREICHER: At that time, at any rate, it would still have been nonsensical to publish it.

DR. MARX: Did it not make you uneasy to deal with the Jewish question in a biased way, in a way which left completely out of sight those qualities of the Jews which can be described as great?

STREICHER: I did not understand this question fully, perhaps I did not hear it correctly.

DR. MARX: You can be accused of treating, in a biased way, only those qualities of the Jews that appear disadvantageous to you, whereas the other qualities of the Jewish people you ignored. What is your explanation?

STREICHER: I think that this question is really superfluous here. It is perfectly natural that I, as an anti-Semitic person and as I saw the Jewish question, was in no way interested in that. Perhaps I did not see the good traits which you or some others see in the Jews. That is possible. But at any rate I was not interested in investigating as to what particular good qualities might be recognized here.

DR. MARX: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: This would seem a good time to break off.

[_A recess was taken._]

DR. MARX: Did you visit concentration camps?

STREICHER: Yes. I visited the Dachau Concentration Camp.

DR. MARX: When was that?

STREICHER: I believe the first time was when all the Gauleiter were called together. I believe 1935, I do not know definitely, 1934 or 1935, I do not know.

DR. MARX: At what intervals did you then visit this camp? It is said that you were in Dachau every 4 weeks.

STREICHER: Altogether I was at Dachau four times.

DR. MARX: It is asserted that after each of your visits in Dachau, Jews disappeared there.

STREICHER: I do not know whether Jews disappeared.

DR. MARX: What caused you to visit the Dachau Camp repeatedly?

STREICHER: I went to the Dachau Camp to visit Social Democratic and Communist functionaries from my Gau who were in prison there to have them introduced to me. I picked out—I do not know how many hundreds of them there were—but every time I was in Dachau I picked out 10 or 20 of those of whom it had been ascertained by the Police that they had no criminal record; I had them picked out from among the inmates, and at Christmas every year I had them brought in buses to Nuremberg to the Hotel Deutscher Hof, where I brought them together with their wives and children and had dinner with them.

I should like to ask the Tribunal, for the benefit of the Nuremberg public, to permit me to make a very short statement as to why I took these Communists out. Party proceedings were initiated against me because I did this. There were rumors which were not true. May I make a very short statement as to why I did it?

DR. MARX: I should like to ask the Tribunal to approve this, Mr. President, so that the reasons why the defendant did this may be ascertained.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, as long as it is brief.

DR. MARX: Be brief.

STREICHER: When I walked through the streets of Nuremberg children approached me and said, “My father is in Dachau.” Women came to me and asked to get their husbands back. I knew many of these officials from the time when I spoke at revolutionary meetings, and I could vouch for these people. I know of only one case where I was wrong in the selection of those people. All the others behaved impeccably. They kept the word which they had given me. Thus, perhaps my Party comrades, who sit here in the dock, see now that I did not want to harm my country but that I wanted to do, and did do, something humanely good.

DR. MARX: Now I come to the picture books which appeared in _Der Stürmer_ publishing house. You know that two picture books were published, one with the title, _Trust No Fox in the Field_, and the other one with the title, _The Poisonous Toadstool_. Do you assume responsibility for these picture books?

STREICHER: Yes. May I say, by way of summary, that I assume responsibility for everything which was written by my assistants or which came into my publishing house.

DR. MARX: Who was the author of these picture books?

STREICHER: The book _Trust No Fox in the Field_ and _No Jew Under His Oath_ was done and illustrated by a young woman artist, and she also wrote the text. The title which appears on the picture book is from Dr. Martin Luther.

The second picture book was done by the Editor-in-Chief of _Der Stürmer_, who was a former schoolteacher. Two criminal cases in Nuremberg, which were tried here in this courtroom, as far as I know, were the occasion for my publishing these two books. There was a manufacturer, Louis Schloss, a Jew, who with young Nuremberg girls some of them still innocent, had...

DR. MARX: Herr Streicher, we do not want to hear that now. My question was only as to who was the author of these picture books and whether you assumed the responsibility for them?

STREICHER: It is important for the Tribunal, in fact, right for them to know how it came about that all of a sudden two picture books for young people appeared in my publishing house. I am making this statement absolutely objectively. I am speaking here of legal cases. There are gentlemen here, who are witnesses, who were here in this court and were present during the proceedings. Only thus can one understand why these books were published. They were the answer to deeds that had occurred.

DR. MARX: Yes, but we are concerned here only with the accusation made against you, that thereby you exerted an influence on the minds of young people which was not beneficial and which could be considered designed to have a poisonous effect.

STREICHER: And I should like to prove by my statement that we wanted to protect youth because things had, in fact, occurred.

DR. MARX: Yes, but young persons could hardly understand the Schloss case, or any such case, could they?

STREICHER: It was a matter of public discussion in Nuremberg and beyond that all over Germany.

DR. MARX: As far as I am concerned, this question is answered, Mr. President.

STREICHER: But not for me as defendant.

THE PRESIDENT: You told us that the books were published to answer things which had occurred here. That is sufficient.

DR. MARX: Witness, another serious accusation made by the Prosecution against you is that a special issue concerning ritual murders was published in the publishing house of _Der Stürmer_ and appeared in one number of _Der Stürmer_. How did this special issue come about and what was the cause for it? Were you the author of that special issue?

STREICHER: No.

DR. MARX: Who was the author?

STREICHER: My collaborator, the Editor-in-Chief at that time, Karl Holz, who is now dead. But I assume the responsibility.

DR. MARX: Is it not true that even during the twenties you dealt with that question in _Der Stürmer_?

STREICHER: Yes, and in public speeches.

DR. MARX: Yes, in public speeches. Why did you now in 1935 stir up again this doubtlessly very grave matter?

STREICHER: I should like to ask my counsel to express no judgment as to what I have written; to question me, but not to express judgment. The Prosecution are going to do that.

You have asked me how this issue came about. I will explain very briefly...

DR. MARX: Excuse me, Mr. President. I have to protest against the fact that Herr Streicher here, in the course of his interrogation by me, thinks he can criticize the manner in which I put my questions. Therefore, I ask the Court to give a decision on this, since otherwise I am not in a position to ask my questions at all.

THE PRESIDENT: You have already stated your position and the Tribunal has given you full support in your position. Will you please continue?

And let me tell you this, Defendant, that if you are insolent either to your counsel or to the Tribunal, the Tribunal will not be able to continue the hearing of your case at this moment. You will kindly treat your counsel and the Tribunal with due courtesy.

STREICHER: May I ask to say something about this?

THE PRESIDENT: No. Answer the question, please.

DR. MARX: I will go on now with my questioning.

The Prosecution accuse you, in connection with this ritual murder affair, of having treated the matter without documentary proof, by referring to a story from the Middle Ages. What, in brief, was your source?

STREICHER: The sources were given in that issue. Nothing was written without the sources being given at the same time. There was reference made to a book written in Greek by a former Rabbi who had been converted to Christianity. There was reference made to a publication of a high clergymen of Milan, a book which has appeared in Germany for the last 50 years. Not even under the democratic government did Jews raise objections to that book. That ritual murder issue refers to court files which are located in Rome, it refers to files which are in Court. There are pictures in it which show that in 23 cases the Church itself has dealt with this question. The Church has canonized 23 non-Jews killed by ritual murder. Pictures of sculptures, that is, of stone monuments were shown as illustrations; everywhere the source was pointed out; even a case in England was mentioned, and one in Kiev, Russia. But in this connection I should like to say, as I said to a Jewish officer here, that we never wanted to assert that all Jewry was ready now to commit ritual murders. But it is a fact that within Jewry there exists a sect which engaged in these murders, and has done so up until the present. I have asked my counsel to submit to the Court a file from Pisek in Czechoslovakia, very recent proceedings. A court of appeal has confirmed a case of ritual murder. Thus, in conclusion I must say...

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I object to this statement, Your Honor. After his counsel has refused to submit it, he insists on stating here the contents of a court record. Now this is not an orderly way to make charges against the Jewish people. Streicher says he is asking counsel to submit. His counsel apparently has refused, whereupon he starts to give evidence of what he knows, in any case, is a resumé of the matters which his counsel has declined to submit here. It seems to me that, having appointed counsel to conduct his case, he has shown repeatedly that he is not willing to conduct his case in an orderly manner and he ought to be returned to his cell and any further statements that he wishes to make to this Court transmitted through his counsel in writing. This is entirely unfair and in contempt of Court.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, I think you had better continue.

DR. MARX: I should like to say that that closes this affair. The essential thing is whether one can say that he treated the case without documentary proof. The Defense is not interested in the affair at all; and, according to my recollection, I even suggested to one of the gentlemen of the Prosecution that this affair perhaps be left out altogether, because it is really so gruesome and so horrible that it is better not to treat it. But the defendant only wanted to say that it was only on the basis of various pieces of evidence that he dealt with the case, and I believe that is sufficient; that should close the matter.

Now, Herr Streicher, you fall again and again into the mistake of going too far in your explanations and of discussing things which can be considered propaganda on your part. I should like to ask you now for the last time to stick to the questions and leave out everything else. It is in your own interest. You are accused of having carried on various activities in your Gau, which were Crimes Against Humanity, of having mistreated people who lived in your Gau. Thus you are accused of having sought out a political prisoner, a certain Steinruck, in his cell and of having beaten him. Is that correct?

STREICHER: Yes.

DR. MARX: Was Steinruck a Jew?

STREICHER: No.

DR. MARX: For what reason did you do that?

STREICHER: Steinruck, in a public place, in the presence of many witnesses, had made derogatory statements about the Führer, libelous statements. He was at police headquarters. I had spoken to the Police President about it and told him that I should like to look at that Steinruck once. I went with my adjutant—the Göring report says that a Party member, Holz, was there too, but that is not correct—I went with my adjutant to police headquarters. The same Police President, who later denounced me to Reich Marshal Göring, took me to Steinruck’s cell. We went into the cell; I stated here that I had come with the intention of talking to him, talking to him reasonably. We talked to him. But he behaved so cowardly that it became necessary at the moment that he be chastised. I do not mind stating here that I am sorry about that case, that I regret it as a slip.

DR. MARX: Then it is asserted that in August 1938 you beat up an editor, Burger. Is that correct?

STREICHER: No, that is not correct. If I had beaten him up, then I would say so here. But I believe that my adjutant and somebody else had an argument with him.

DR. MARX: What about the incident in the Künstlerhaus in Munich?

STREICHER: I went to Munich to the Inn Künstlerstätte, or something like that. I was received by the manager. Then a young man came up to me, drunk and quarrelsome, and shouted at me. The manager protested and ordered him out of the place. But the drunken young fellow came back again and again and then my chauffeur grabbed him and my son helped. They took him into a room and beat him up and then the proprietor of the inn thanked me for having rid him of the drunkard.

And now I should like to have the Tribunal’s permission to state very briefly my position on one case which I believe the Prosecution also have dropped, where I was accused of sadistic tendencies...

THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, you know perfectly well that that incident has been stricken from the record and is not, therefore, mentioned against you, so that it is quite unnecessary to go into it. The Tribunal cannot hear you on it.

DR. MARX: Witness, from the so-called Göring report I should like to submit to you some points which have been presented by the Prosecution.

You know that after the action of November 1938, in the district of Franconia, Aryanization of Jewish property was undertaken to the utmost extent. Would you like to make a statement about that?

STREICHER: Here in the Göring report is a reference to a statement of the deceased Party member, Holz. In that statement it is pointed out that Holz came to see me after that action, that he made a report about the action and likewise declared the action to be wrong; he said furthermore that now that this had happened, he considered it necessary to go further and Aryanize the property. The Göring report states that I then told Holz that could not be done and that I opposed it. Then it states further that Holz said to me that he still thought it would be right if one were to do it. We could then get out of it the means for the establishment of a Gau school. Holz also states that I said something like: “Well, Holz, if you believe you can do it, then go ahead and do it.”

I want to state here that what Party member Holz said is true. I was opposed at first; and then, acting on a sudden impulse, which I cannot understand today, I said, “Well, if you can do it, then go ahead and do it.” I want to state that at that time when I said it, I did not believe at all that it was to be done or would be done; but it was done. The Reich Marshal, as Delegate for the Four Year Plan, later stated his position on it in Berlin, sharply rejecting it. Only at that time did I find out exactly how Holz accomplished this Aryanization. I had a talk with him, got into a serious dispute; and our friendly relations were broken off at that time. Holz volunteered in an armored unit, went to the front, and resigned as deputy. I returned from Berlin to Nuremberg, and later there appeared in Nuremberg a Police Inspector sent by the Reich Marshal in his capacity as Delegate for the Four Year Plan. He reported to me and asked me if I would agree to an investigation of the whole matter, and I stated that I would welcome the investigation. Then the investigation took place. The Aryanization was repealed, and it was established that Holz personally had not gotten any material advantage from it. Aryanization was then taken over by the State, repealed, and taken over.

I state frankly that in that affair I am at least guilty of negligence.

DR. MARX: Did you know that the amounts paid in the Aryanization of houses or real estate represented only about 20 percent, or even less, of the actual value?

STREICHER: Holz had not come to see me for weeks. He had carried on the Aryanization in the Labor Front Office with the expert there. Not until later, in Berlin during the meeting which the Reich Marshal held, did I learn of the real facts; and thus the dispute and the break between Holz and me came about, because I had to disapprove the manner in which the Aryanization had been handled.

DR. MARX: You are further accused of having had shares in the Mars Works at Nuremberg acquired at an extraordinarily low price, for purposes of enriching yourself and, in the course of this acquisition, of having exerted an undue pressure on the owner of the shares?

STREICHER: It says in the Göring report, literally, that I had instructed and in another place that I had given the order that the Mars shares be acquired for me. I state here that I neither instructed nor ordered anyone to acquire the Mars shares. The whole thing was like this. The director of my publishing house, who had power of attorney because I, personally, never in all the years bothered with financial or business matters, could do what he wanted. One day he came to see me with my adjutant. I do not recollect now whether the adjutant or the director of my publishing house was the one who spoke first. I was told the following: An attorney had called and said that the Mars shares were being offered for sale at an advantageous price. The director of my publishing house asked me whether I agreed. I stated that never in my life had I owned any shares, that I had never bothered about financial matters in my publishing house. If he thought that the stock should be bought, then he could do it. The shares were bought. It was the most serious breach of confidence ever committed against me by any Party comrade or employee. After a short time it turned out; that is, I was informed how these shares had been acquired. I found out that the owner had been threatened. When I found out under what conditions this stock purchase had been made, I gave the order at once to return the stock. In the Göring report it is noted that this return took place. Among the confiscated files of my publishing house there is an official statement about this affair which shows that these shares were returned.

In this connection perhaps I may be permitted to say that my publishing house was located until the end of the war in a rented house. At the time of the Aryanization I was approached with the plan that an Aryanized house be acquired for my publishing firm. I refused that. I state here in conclusion that I have in my possession no Jewish property.

When those demonstrations occurred in 1938, jewels had been brought into the Gau house. These pieces of jewelry were turned over to the police. A man who was bearer of the honorary Party emblem was convicted and sentenced to 6 years penal servitude because he had given his sweetheart a ring and another piece of jewelry dating from that time. But I may add one thing: The guilt of this bearer of the Party emblem rests perhaps with those who gave the order: “Go into the Jewish houses.” That man, as far as I knew him, had always been personally decent. Because of that order, he got into a position in which he committed a crime.

I have finished what I wanted to say.

DR. MARX: Is it not true the allegations, made by the chief of the publishing firm Fink before the Party Court and also even before that, at a police interrogation, were different, in the main points, from your present statements?

STREICHER: The whole thing was that Fink, the publishing house manager, was called to police headquarters and interrogated. The police Chief was interested in the hearing since for many years he had been a friend of mine and of my family. Fink returned from the interrogation completely upset. He paced up and down in front of me and shouted, “I was threatened, I have made statements which are not true. I am blackguard. I am a criminal.” A witness of that incident was my chauffeur. I calmed him down and told him, “I was called in for a hearing once, too. I was even imprisoned once. I will give you opportunity...”

THE PRESIDENT: Is it necessary to go into such detail in this matter?

DR. MARX: Excuse me, Mr. President. Perhaps this is necessary, because in this very report reference is made to the testimony of Fink; and an attempt is made to prove with this that the explanation made by the Defendant Streicher is wrong, that he gave the order to purchase this stock, possibly under pressure, and that he approved of it, whereas he counters that he knew neither that these shares were to be bought at such a low price nor that blackmail was to be used.

If this is taken for granted, then, of course, we can close the matter.

THE PRESIDENT: That is what he has already said. He has said that quite clearly, has he not? I was only suggesting that it was not necessary to go into such detail in the matter.

DR. MARX: Witness, it may be of some importance to state what the development of _Der Stürmer_ has been since 1933, as far as circulation is concerned. Give us a short statement on the circulation of _Der Stürmer_, and then I shall put another question to you.

STREICHER: _Der Stürmer_ appeared in 1923 in octavo format, and in the beginning it had a circulation of 2,000 to 3,000 copies. In the course of time the circulation increased to 10,000. At that time _Der Stürmer_ circulated—until 1933 really—only in Nuremberg, in my Gau, perhaps also in Southern Bavaria. The publisher was a bookseller and he worked first with one man, then with two. This is proof that the circulation was really small.

In 1933—but I say this with certain reservations because it may be that the publisher did not always tell me the correct circulation figures and I had no written contract with him—I say with reservations, that in 1933 the circulation was 25,000 copies.

In 1935 the publisher died; and at that time it was, I believe, 40,000. Then an expert took over the publishing house and organized it to cover all of Germany. The circulation increased then to 100,000, and went up as high as 600,000. It fluctuated, decreased, and then dropped during the war; I cannot say exactly but I believe it was about 150,000 to 200,000.

DR. MARX: You said that that new man organized the circulation to cover all of Germany. Was the Party machinery utilized in this, and were not industries and other offices—the German Labor Front, for instance—utilized in order to increase the circulation forcibly?

STREICHER: Well, the attitude of the Party was made manifest in a letter, which was sent to all Gaue, signed by Bormann. There it was expressly pointed out that _Der Stürmer_ was not a Party organ and had nothing to do with the Party. Thereupon several Gauleiter saw this an occasion for ordering that _Der Stürmer_ should not appear in their Gaue any more. Now it is clear that within the organizations there were Party members who, because of idealism or for other reasons, worked to increase the distribution of _Der Stürmer_. However, I myself, neither in writing nor orally, ever issued any order to any Party organization to support _Der Stürmer_.

DR. MARX: Herr Streicher, even, before 1933 you came in contact with the courts on various occasions, both because of your articles and because of your attitude as evidenced in _Der Stürmer_. Would you give us a short statement as to how often that occurred and what consequences it had for you?

STREICHER: How often? I cannot answer that exactly now, but it was very often. I was frequently given a court summons. You ask me about the consequences. I was many times in prison, but I can say proudly that in the sentences it repeatedly stated “an incorruptible fanatic for the truth.”

That was the consequence of my activity as a speaker and writer, but perhaps it is important to add the following: I never was arraigned because of criminal charges, but only because of my anti-Semitic activity, and the charge was brought by an organization of citizens of the Jewish faith. The chairman filed charges repeatedly when we made a slip in speaking and thus exposed ourselves to prosecution on the basis of the laws and regulations existing at that time. But perhaps I may also point out here that the Jewish Justizrat, Dr. Süssheim, the Prosecuting Attorney, stated before the court here in this courtroom, “Your Honors, he is our inexorable enemy, but he is a fanatic for the truth. He is convinced of what he does; he is honest about it.”

THE PRESIDENT: What years were they that you were repeatedly in jail?

STREICHER: That was, of course, before 1933. The first time I went to Landsberg, to prison, because I had taken part in the Hitler Putsch. Then I was sentenced to three and a half months in prison in Nuremberg, where I am now. Then I got three months...

THE PRESIDENT: You needn’t bother with the details.

STREICHER: That is to say, before 1933 I was repeatedly given prison sentences or fined.

DR. MARX: Mr. President, the Göring report also mentions the fact that the Defendant Streicher was personally interested in various Jewish plants, allegedly in order to get some capital out of them. However, I am of the opinion that it is not essential to deal with these points. The same applies to the fact that the house on Lake of Constance was sold, and to whom. I do not know whether the defendant should make any statements about this here. In my opinion there is no cause to ask him any questions concerning that.

THE PRESIDENT: I think you could leave that and see whether it is taken up in cross-examination. If it is, then you may re-examine him.

DR. MARX: Yes, certainly.

Mr. President, this concludes my questions to the defendant.

THE PRESIDENT: Do any members of defendants’ counsel wish to ask questions of the defendant?

[_There was no response._]

The Prosecution?

LIEUTENANT COLONEL J. M. G. GRIFFITH-JONES (Junior Counsel for the United Kingdom): If the Tribunal pleases.

When you handed over your Party to Hitler in 1922, did you know his policy and what was to become the policy of the Nazi Party?

STREICHER: The policy? First I should like to say, “no.” At that time one could not speak of things which could not exist even as thoughts. The policy then was to create a new faith for the German people, that is, a faith which would deny the chaos and disorder and which would bring about a return to order.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: May I take it that, within a short course of time, you knew the policy, the policy according to the Party program and according to _Mein Kampf_?

STREICHER: I did not need a Party program. I admit frankly that I never read it in its entirety. At that time programs were not important, but mass meetings...

THE PRESIDENT: That’s not an answer to the question. The question was whether, a short time after 1922, you knew the policy as indicated in the Party program and in _Mein Kampf_.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: You knew, did you not, that the policy included the Anschluss with Austria? Can you answer that “yes” or “no”?

STREICHER: No. There was never any talk about Austria. I do not remember that the Führer ever spoke about the fact that Austria should be annexed.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I only want you to answer my question. My question was: Did you know that the Führer’s policy was the annexation of Austria to Germany? I understand your answer to be “no.” Is that correct?

STREICHER: That he intended it? No, that I did not know.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Did you know that he intended to take over Czechoslovakia or at least the Sudetenland?

STREICHER: No.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Did you know that from the beginning in _Mein Kampf_ his ultimate objective was Lebensraum?

STREICHER: What I read in _Mein Kampf_ is marked in red. The book has been confiscated. I only read that. I read only what concerns the Jewish question; I did not read anything else. However, that we had the objective of acquiring Lebensraum for our people, that goes without saying. I personally also had set myself the objective of contributing in some way to providing a future for the surplus children.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well. May I take it that during the years 1922 and 1923, as editor and owner of _Der Stürmer_, and as a Gauleiter from 1925, you did everything you could to put the Nazi Party into power?

STREICHER: Yes; that is to be taken as a matter of course.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: And after 1933 did you continuously support and issue propaganda on behalf of the Nazi Party’s policy?

STREICHER: Yes.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Not only in respect to the Jewish question, but to the foreign policy as well?

STREICHER: No, that is not correct. In _Der Stürmer_ there is not a single article to be found which dealt with foreign policy. I devoted myself exclusively...

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: That is quite enough. I am not going to occupy very much time with this matter. But I would ask you to look at Document Number D-802.

My Lord, this is a new exhibit.

THE PRESIDENT: Which will be what?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Exhibit Number GB-327.

My Lord, I am sorry, but the document seems to be missing for the moment. Perhaps I might read the extract.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Let me just read to you an extract from an article which you wrote in _Der Stürmer_ of March 1938, immediately after the Anschluss with Austria. I want you to tell me whether or not you are advocating the Nazi policy in regard to Austria.

“Our Lord is making provision that the power of the Jews may not extend to heaven itself. What was only a dream up to a few days ago has now become reality. The brother nation of Austria has returned home to the Reich.”

And then, a few lines farther down:

“We are entering into glorious times, a Greater Germany without Jews.”

Do you say that you are not there issuing propaganda on behalf of the Nazi policy?

STREICHER: I did not indulge in propaganda politics, for Austria was already annexed. I just welcomed the fact. I did not need to make any more propaganda about it.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well. Perhaps you’ll tell me what you mean by the “Greater Germany” that you are approaching. What Greater Germany are you approaching in March 1938, a Germany greater than it was after the Anschluss with Austria?

STREICHER: A Greater Germany, a living area in which all Germans, German-speaking people, people of German blood, can live together.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Do I understand that you are advocating Lebensraum, greater space, not yet owned by Germany?

STREICHER: Not at first, no. At first it was merely a question of Austria and Germany. The Austrians are Germans and, therefore, belong to a Greater Germany.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I won’t argue with you. I will just ask you once more, what do you mean by the “Greater Germany” that you are approaching in March of 1938?

STREICHER: I have already explained, a Germany where all those can live and work together who speak German and have German blood.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Would you look at Document Number D-818, which will become Exhibit Number GB-328. Perhaps I can carry on. In November of 1938, after Munich, did you yourself personally send a telegram to Konrad Henlein, the leader of the Sudeten-German Party?

STREICHER: If it says so here, then it is true. I do not recall it.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Let me refresh your recollection as to what you said, “Without your courageous preparatory work the great task would not have succeeded.”

Are you there advocating and issuing propaganda in support of the policy of the Nazi Government?

STREICHER: I have to ask you again, would you please repeat your question?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I am asking you whether or not that telegram, which you sent to Konrad Henlein and reprinted in your newspaper under a picture of that gentleman—I am asking you whether or not that was propaganda in support of the Nazi policy, Nazi foreign policy?

STREICHER: I have to say the same to this as I said before. That was a telegram of greeting, of thanks. I did not have to make propaganda any more because the Munich Agreement had already taken place.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I put it to you and I’ll leave it. I’ll put it to you that throughout the years from 1933 until 1944 or 1945 you were in fact doing everything you could to support the policy of the Government, both domestically and in regard to its foreign affairs.

STREICHER: As far as possible within my field of activity, yes.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I want to turn now to the question of the Jews. May I remind you of the speech that you made on 1 April 1933, that is to say, the day of the boycott.

My Lord, this will be found in the original document book, Document Number M-33. It was not actually put in before. It now becomes Exhibit Number GB-329. It is in the document book on Page 15, in the original document book which the Tribunal have.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Now, I give you the document book. If you want to see the original, you may do so in every case. [_The document book was submitted to the defendant._]

“For 14 years we have been crying to the German nation, ‘German people, learn to recognize your true enemy,’ and 14 years ago the German Philistines listened and then declared that we preached religious hatred. Today German people have awakened; even all over the world there is talk of the eternal Jews. Never since the beginning of the world and the creation of man has there been a nation which dared to fight against the nation of blood-suckers and extortioners who, for a thousand years, have spread all over the world.”

And then I go down to the last line of the next paragraph:

“It was left to our Movement to expose the eternal Jew as a mass murderer.”

Is it right that for 14 years you had been repeating in Germany, “German people, learn to recognize your true enemy”?

STREICHER: I state first of all that what you have given me here has nothing to do with that. You have given me an article...

THE PRESIDENT: You are asked a question. You are asked whether it is true that for 14 years you had been repeating, to Germany, “Learn to recognize your true enemy.” Is that true?

STREICHER: Yes.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: And in doing so, is it true that you had been preaching religious hatred?

STREICHER: No.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Will you look at...

STREICHER: May I be permitted to make a statement concerning this answer? In my weekly, _Der Stürmer_, I repeatedly stated that for me the Jews are not a religious group but a race, a people.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: And do you think to call them “blood-suckers,” “a nation of blood-suckers and extortioners”—do you think that’s preaching hatred?

STREICHER: I beg your pardon. I have not understood you?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: You may call them a race or a nation, whichever you like, now; but you were saying, on 1 April 1933, that they were a “nation of blood-suckers and extortioners.” Do you call that preaching hatred?

STREICHER: That is a statement, the expression of a conviction which can be proved on the basis of historical facts.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Understand me. I did not ask you whether it was a fact or not. I am asking whether you called it preaching hatred. Your answer is “yes” or “no.”

STREICHER: No, it is not preaching hatred; it is just a statement of facts.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Will you look two pages further on in that last document, M-33, and do you see the fourth paragraph from the end of the extract? That is Page 17 of the document book: “As long as I stand at the head of the struggle, this struggle will be conducted so honestly that the eternal Jew will derive no joy from it.”

STREICHER: That I wrote; that was right.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: And you were, were you not, one of those who did stand and continue to stand at the head of that struggle?

STREICHER: Did I stand at the head? I am too modest a man for that. But I do claim to have declared my conviction and my knowledge clearly and unmistakably.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Why did you say that so long as you were at the head of it, the Jew would derive no joy from it?

STREICHER: Because I considered myself a man whom destiny had placed in a position to enlighten people on the Jewish question.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: And “enlightenment”—is that another word for persecution? Do you mean by “enlightenment,” “persecution”?

STREICHER: I did not understand that.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Do you mean by “enlightenment” the word “persecution”? Is that why the Jew was to have no joy from it, from your enlightenment?

STREICHER: I ask to have the question repeated.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I can show it to you and we will repeat the question as loud as you want it. Do you mean by “enlightenment” the word “persecution”? Do you hear that?

STREICHER: I hear “enlightenment” and “production.” I mean by “enlightenment” telling another person something which he does not yet know.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: We won’t go on with that. You know, do you not, that starting with the boycott which you led yourself in 1933, the Jews thereafter were, during the course of the years, deprived of the right to vote, deprived of holding any public office, excluded from the professions; demonstrations were conducted against them in 1938, they were fined a billion marks after that, they were forced to wear a yellow star, they had their own separate seats to sit on, and they had their houses and their businesses taken away from them. Do you call that “enlightenment”?

STREICHER: That has nothing to do with what I wrote, nothing to do with it. I did not issue the orders. I did not make the laws. I was not asked when laws were prepared. I had nothing to do with these laws and orders.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: But as those laws and orders were passed you were applauding them, and you were going on abusing the Jews and asking for more and more orders to be passed; isn’t that a fact?

STREICHER: I ask to have put to me which law I applauded.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Now, you told the Tribunal yesterday, did you not, that you were responsible, you thought, for the Nuremberg Decrees, which you had been advocating for years before they came into force; isn’t that a fact?

STREICHER: The Nuremberg Decrees? I did not make them. I was not asked beforehand, and I did not sign them either. But I state here that these laws are the same laws which the Jewish people have as their own. It is the greatest and most important act of legislation which a modern nation has at any time made for its protection.

THE PRESIDENT: I think that is the time to break off.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom): My Lord, I wonder if the Tribunal would be good enough to consider setting aside a half hour some time for the discussion of the documents of the Defendant Von Schirach. We are ready to clear up outstanding points at any time that is suitable to the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: [_Turning to the defendant._] Now, I just want to ask you a few questions as to the part you played in the various actions against the Jews between 1933 and 1939.

Will you look at Document M-6, which is at Page 20 in the document book that you have before you, Page 22 in the document book that the Tribunal have in English. It is Page 20 in the German document book; M-6, which is already Exhibit Number GB-170.

Now, I just want to refer to what you said about the Nuremberg Decrees. You told us this morning that you thought when they had been passed that that was already the final solution of the Jewish question. Will you look at the paragraph beginning in the center of the page, “However, to those who believe...”:

“However, to those who believe that the Jewish question has been finally solved and the matter thus settled for Germany by the Nuremberg Decrees, be it said that the battle continues—world Jewry itself is seeing to that anyhow—and we shall only get through this battle victoriously if every member of the German people knows that his very existence is at stake. The work of enlightenment carried on by the Party seems to me to be more necessary than ever today, even though many Party members seem to think that these matters are no longer real or urgent.”

STREICHER: Yes, I wrote that.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: What do you mean by saying “the battle continues,” if you have already solved the Jewish problem by the issuance of the Nuremberg Decrees?

STREICHER: I have already stated today that the solution of the Jewish problem was regarded by me as having to be solved, first of all, within the country and then in conjunction with other nations. Thus “the battle continues” means that in the International Anti-Semitic Union, which I had formed and which had representatives from all countries in it, the question was discussed as to what could be done from an international point of view to terminate the Jewish problem.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Are we, therefore, to take it that everything that you said and wrote after 1936 was in connection with an international problem and had nothing to do with the Jews in Germany as such?

STREICHER: Yes, mainly international, of course.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Let me just refer you to half way through the next paragraph, “_Der Stürmer’s_ 15 years’ work of enlightenment has already led an army of those who know, millions strong, to National Socialism.” Is that so?

STREICHER: That is correct.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: You see, you were telling the Tribunal this morning that up to 1933, and indeed afterwards, you said the circulation of your paper was only very small. Is it true, in fact, that your 15 years’ work had led an army, millions strong, to National Socialism?

STREICHER: I have said today that the moment the press was politically co-ordinated, 3,000 daily newspapers were committed to the purpose of enlightenment about the Jewish problem. There were 3,000 daily papers in addition to _Der Stürmer_.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well. I don’t think you need go on. Let me just finish reading through that paragraph:

“The continued work of _Der Stürmer_ will help to insure that down to the last man every German will, with heart and hand, join the ranks of those whose aim it is to crush the head of the serpent Pan-Judah.”

Wait one moment, let me ask my question. There is nothing there about an international problem. You are addressing yourself to the German people, are you not?

STREICHER: In that article? Yes. And if that article was read abroad, then also to countries abroad, but as to the remark about crushing the serpent’s head, that is a biblical expression.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Will you now let us discuss for a moment the breaking up of the synagogue in Nuremberg, which you have told about, on the 10th of August of 1938. Will you look at Page 41 of the book that you have in front of you, Page 42 of the English document book that the Tribunal has.

Now we have heard your explanation of that breaking up of the synagogue. The _Fränkische Tageszeitung_ at the 11th of August states this, “In Nuremberg the synagogue is being demolished. Julius Streicher himself inaugurated this work by a speech lasting more than an hour and a half.” Were you talking to the inhabitants of Nuremberg upon the architectural value of their city for an hour and a half on the 10th of August 1938?

STREICHER: I no longer know in detail what I said, but I refer to what you have remarked and what you find important. There was a branch of the Propaganda Ministry in Nuremberg. The young Regierungsrat had press conferences with the editors every day, and at that time he told the editors during a press conference that Streicher would speak and that the synagogue was being demolished and that this was to be kept secret.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I asked you, were you talking for that hour and a half on the architectural beauties of Nuremberg and not against the Jews? Is that what you are telling us?

STREICHER: That, too, of course.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: At the press conference to which you referred—you no doubt have seen the document; it is Page 40 of the Tribunal’s document book—do you remember that it was arranged that the show should be staged in a big way, the show of pulling down the synagogue? What was the object of arranging the demonstration to demolish that synagogue in such a big way?

STREICHER: I was merely the speaker. What you are intimating here, that was done by the representative of the Ministry of Propaganda; but I would not object to it if you decided to assume, let me put it like that, that I would naturally have been in favor of making a big show if I had been asked.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Let me just ask you now a word about the demonstrations which followed that in November of that year—My Lord, I refer to Page 43 of the document book; 42 of the German—as I understand it, you tell us that you disapproved of those demonstrations that took place and they took place without your knowledge or previous knowledge. Is that correct, “yes” or “no”?

STREICHER: Yes, it is correct.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I just want to remind you of what you said on the following day, the 10th of November. This is an account of what happened:

“In Nuremberg and Fürth there were demonstrations by the crowd against the Jewish gang of murderers. These lasted until the early hours of the morning.”

I now pass to the end of that paragraph:

“After midnight the excitement of the public had reached its peak and a large crowd marched to the synagogues in Nuremberg and Fürth and burned those two Jewish buildings where the murder of Germans had been preached.”

This is now what you say—it is on Page 44 of the document book, My Lord:

“From the cradle on, the Jew is not taught as we are: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’ or ‘If you are smitten on the left cheek offer then your right one.’ No. He is told ‘With the non-Jew you can do whatever you like.’ He is even taught that the slaughtering of a non-Jew is an act pleasing to God. For 20 years we have been writing about this in _Der Stürmer_. For 20 years we have been preaching it throughout the world, and we have made millions recognize the truth.”

Does that sound as though you had disapproved of the demonstrations that had taken place the night before?

STREICHER: First of all I must state that the report, part of which you read, appeared in a daily paper. Thus I am not to be held responsible for this. If someone wrote that part of the populace rose up against the gang of murderers then that is in keeping with the order from the Ministry of Propaganda in Berlin; outwardly that action was described as a spontaneous demonstration of the populace...

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: That does not answer my question. Does that passage that I have read sound as though you had disapproved of the demonstrations that had taken place the night before? Does it or does it not?

STREICHER: I was against that demonstration.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Just let me read on:

“But we know that we have in our midst people who take pity on the Jews, people who are not worthy of living in this town, who are not worthy of belonging to this people, of whom you are a proud part.”

Why should it have been necessary for people to have had pity on the Jews, if you were not—you and the Nazi Party—persecuting them?

STREICHER: I have already pointed out today that I was forced, after this demonstration had taken place, to make a public comment and say that one should not have so much pity. I wanted to prove thereby that this was not a spontaneous action by the people; in other words, the matter does not speak against me; it speaks for me. The people, as I myself, were opposed to the demonstration and I found that I had cause to—should I say—get public opinion to the point where one might possibly not regard that action as something too severe.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: But, why, if you were opposed to it and if the people were opposed to it, should it have been your duty to try and convert them so that they should be in favor of that kind of thing? Why were you opposed to it and why should you try to turn them against the Jew?

STREICHER: I do not understand what you mean.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I understand you to say that you were opposed to these demonstrations and that the people also were opposed to the demonstrations; that, therefore, it was your duty to try to stir them up and make them in favor of the demonstrations after they had happened. Why should it have been your duty to do that?

STREICHER: Today one can perhaps say that this or that was my duty, but one must consider what those times were—the confusion that existed—that to make a quick decision, as one might have to in this courtroom, was quite impossible. What happened has happened. I was against it and the public too. What was written about it otherwise was done so for tactical reasons.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well. Were you in favor of the Aryanization of Jewish houses and businesses? Were you in favor of that or did you disapprove of that issue?

STREICHER: I have answered that question today in great detail, in connection with a statement of Party comrade Holz. I have stated and I repeat that my deputy came to me...

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Just stop for a moment, I don’t want a speech. I asked you a question which you could answer “yes” or “no.” Did you approve or disapprove of the system of Aryanization of Jewish businesses and houses?

STREICHER: One cannot answer that quickly with “yes” or “no.” I have made it clear today, and you must allow me to explain it so that there is not any misunderstanding. My Party comrade...

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I am not going to allow you to repeat it. I will go on if you are not prepared to answer that question. The Tribunal have heard it and I pass on.

STREICHER: I certainly want to answer it. After my Party comrades...

THE PRESIDENT: Defendant...

STREICHER: After the Party comrades came...

THE PRESIDENT: You have refused to answer the question properly, a question to which you can give either an affirmative or a negative answer. Did you approve or did you not approve? You can give an answer to that and then you can give any explanation afterwards.

STREICHER: I personally was not for Aryanization. When Holz repeated that, giving as a reason that the houses had been pretty badly damaged, _et cetera_, that we might get material for a Gau (district) building, I said “All right, if you can do it, go ahead.” I already stated today that this was carelessness on my part.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: There were in fact a very great number of Jewish businesses and houses Aryanized in Nuremberg and Franconia, were there not?

STREICHER: Yes.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Would you just look at a new exhibit, Document Number D-835, which becomes Exhibit GB-330. That is a list—it is an original document—it is a list of Jewish property in Nuremberg and Fürth which was Aryanized. Have you seen that list or anything like it before?

STREICHER: No.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Well, you can take it from me, that that list contains the addresses of some 800 properties in Nuremberg and Fürth which have been taken from the Jews and handed over to Aryans. Would you agree that that would be at least 800 houses in your city here that were Aryanized?

STREICHER: I do not know about it in detail; but I must establish something: I do not know—is that the official document? I have already stated today that my Party comrade Holz started Aryanizing. That was rescinded by Berlin. Then came the Aryanization carried out by the State. I could not have had any influence here, either, so that this was none of my business. This Aryanization, the expropriation of Jewish property, was ordered by Berlin.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Now, you mentioned this morning that you were a subscriber to a weekly newspaper called the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_; is that correct?

STREICHER: Yes.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: When did you start subscribing to that newspaper?

STREICHER: What did you say?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: At what date did you start subscribing to that newspaper?

STREICHER: I do not know.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Well, I have no doubt you can tell the Tribunal approximately. Have you always, since 1933, been a subscriber of that newspaper?

STREICHER: Well, I do not think I could have read every issue, since I traveled a great deal.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: You were, as I think it is stated in this application of your wife to give evidence, a regular reader of it, were you not?

STREICHER: My friends, the editors, and I used to share in the reading of this paper.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: May I take it that between yourself and your editors—I don’t say every copy was read—but it was regularly read from 1933 onwards; is that fair?

STREICHER: You cannot say “read regularly.”

LT. COL, GRIFFITH-JONES: A large number of the copies that you subscribed for, which came weekly to you, were they read by yourself or by your editors?

STREICHER: Certainly.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Now, I want to turn to something else for a moment. I want to make myself perfectly clear to you.

DR. MARX: Mr. President, I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the document which has just been presented, “Confiscated Property and Real Estate,” has the heading “Aryanization Department for Real Estate, Nuremberg.” That cannot mean anything except that this document comes from the official department which was later set up for the confiscation of such real estate. But by no means can this be a document to prove that we are concerned here with the real estate Aryanized by Holz, subsequent to 9 November.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I accept that that may be so.

DR. MARX: I should like to ask, therefore, that the appropriate correction be made.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: If I was mistaken in saying that those properties had been Aryanized, I would be right then, would I not, in saying that that list of properties was prepared by the Aryanization Department in Nuremberg for the purpose of Aryanizing them in the future? Would that be a fair statement to make?

STREICHER: No.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I won’t pursue that matter any further.

I want to make myself quite clear to you in what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that from 1939 onwards you set out to incite the German people to murder and to accept the fact of the murder of the Jewish race. Do you understand that?

STREICHER: That is not true.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: No doubt you will say it isn’t true. I just wanted you to be quite clear on what my suggestion is going to be.

I want you to look now at a bundle, which will be given to you, of extracts from _Der Stürmer_. You can see the originals which are in Court if you desire to do so, but it will save time if we use the document books there.

Now, will you look at Page 3-A. For convenience, the pages in this bundle are all marked “A” to distinguish them from the numbers in the original document book.

THE PRESIDENT: Are they all in evidence?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: None of them are in evidence at the moment. Perhaps the most convenient way would be for me to put the actual documents in evidence together at the end, unless the Tribunal or the defendant desire to see any copies of them. I will give them numbers as I go along.

Will you look at Page 3-A of that bundle, Document Number D-809, which becomes Exhibit Number GB-331:

“The Jewish problem is not yet solved, nor will it be solved when one day the last Jew will have left Germany. Only when world Jewry has been annihilated, will it have been solved.”

Is that what you were working for when you say you were working for the international solution to this problem, an annihilation of world Jewry?

STREICHER: If that is how you understand “annihilation.” That was written by my chief editor at the time. He says that the Jewish problem will not yet be solved when the last Jew will have left Germany. And when he suddenly says that only when world Jewry has been annihilated will it be solved, then he certainly may have meant that the power of world Jewry should be annihilated. But my Party comrade Holz did not think of mass killing or the possibility of mass killing.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: The German word used there is “vernichtet,” is it not? Look at your copy. “Vernichtet” that means “to annihilate.”

STREICHER: Today, when you look back, you could interpret it like that, but not at that time.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well, we won’t waste time because we have quite a number to look through. Will you look on to the next page. That was in January you were writing that. In April 1939, Document D-810, Exhibit GB-332, I refer only to the last two lines. This is an article again by your editor: “Then perhaps their graves will proclaim that this murderous and criminal people has, after all, met its deserved fate.”

What do you mean by “graves” there? Do you mean excluding them from the business of the world?

STREICHER: This is the first time that I have seen this article. That is the statement of opinion of a man who was probably looking ahead and making a play on words; but as far as I knew him, and as far as we discussed the Jewish problem, there was no question of mass extermination; we did not even think of it. Maybe it was his wish—I do not know—but anyway, that is the way it happened to be written.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well. Just turn over, will you now, to May 1939, Document Number D-811, Exhibit Number GB-333. I quote the last six lines: “There must be a punitive expedition against the Jews in Russia.”

This, of course, was before the Russian invasion.

“There must be a punitive expedition against the Jews in Russia, a punitive expedition which will provide the same fate for them that every murderer and criminal must expect, death sentence and execution. The Jews in Russia must be killed. They must be utterly exterminated. Then the world will see that the end of the Jews is also the end of Bolshevism.”

STREICHER: Who wrote that article?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: It is published in your _Stürmer_. We can find out, if necessary. It is not written by you, but it is published in your _Der Stürmer_; and you have told the Tribunal that you accept responsibility for everything that was written in that newspaper.

STREICHER: All right, I assume responsibility; but I want to state that, here too, this is the private opinion of a man who in May 1939 could not have thought that _ex nihilo_—for we had no soldiers—a “March to Russia” could be started. This is a theoretic and very strongly-worded expression of opinion of that anti-Semitic person.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: All I ask you about that is: Is that not advocating the murder of Jews, that article; if it is not, what is it advocating?

STREICHER: The whole article would have to be read so that I could tell what motives existed for writing something like that. I therefore ask you to make public the whole article. Then one can form a proper judgment.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Well, we’ll go on. We won’t waste time unless you really want to see the whole article.

My Lord, if I perhaps might be allowed to put these documents in evidence. As Your Lordship will see, this bundle is a bundle of extracts from _Der Stürmer_.

DR. MARX: Mr. President, with the permission of the Tribunal, I would like to make the following statements: A number of extracts from _Der Stürmer_ have been mentioned here which have been put before me for the first time. Some of them are articles which have not been written by the defendant personally. Some are signed by Hiemer, and some by Holz, who was particularly radical in his manner of writing, and passages are being quoted which are perhaps taken out of context.

I must ask, therefore, that I be afforded the opportunity of going over these extracts together with the Defendant Streicher. Otherwise, he might come to the conclusion that his defense is being made too difficult for him and that it is being made impossible for him to prepare himself appropriately.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, you will have an opportunity of checking up on these various extracts, and then you will be able to introduce, if necessary, any passages which explain the extracts. That is a matter which has been explained to defendants’ counsel over and over again.

Colonel Griffith-Jones, are there not certain of these extracts which are written or signed by the defendant?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Well, with Your Lordship’s permission I will refer to some of them, but so that I should not have to refer to all of them, I was going to suggest that perhaps I might put them in and, if it is necessary, let the Tribunal know afterwards the numbers of them to save time.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I put the whole bundle in evidence and will not refer to all of them.

THE PRESIDENT: Then you can give us the exhibit numbers later.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: If that is suitable to the convenience of the Court.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Well now, the Tribunal will see by looking at this bundle, from the first page—which I think is 3-A—to Page 25-A, that there are various extracts which have been written either by yourself or by members of your staff between January 1939 and January 1941.

Do I understand you to say now, to have said in your evidence, that you never knew that Jews were being exterminated in thousands and millions in the Eastern territories? Did you never know that?

STREICHER: No.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: As I understood your evidence about the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_ this morning you said this, as I have written it down:

“Sometimes that journal contained hints that everything was not in order. Later in 1943 an article appeared stating that masses of Jews were disappearing but the article did not quote any figures and did not mention anything about murders.”

Are you really saying that those copies of the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_, which you and your editors were reading, contained nothing except for a hint of disappearance with no mention of figures or murder? Is that what you are telling this Tribunal?

STREICHER: Yes, I stick to that, certainly.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Now, I want you, if you will, to take this bundle and keep it in front of you. It is a bundle of extracts from the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_ from July 1941 until the end of the war. The Tribunal will be able to see what a fanatic for the truth really tells.

[_The document was submitted to the defendant._]

My Lord, this bundle, for convenience again, is marked “B.”

[_Turning to the defendant._] Will you look at the first page? That is an article on the 11th of July 1941. “Some 40,000 Jews died in Poland during the last years. The hospitals are overfull.”

Now, you need not turn over for the moment, Defendant. We will turn the pages soon enough.

Did you happen to read that sentence in the issue of the 11th of July 1941?

STREICHER: No.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Will you look at Page 3, 3-B? In November 1941: “Very bad news comes from the Ukraine. Thousands of Jewish dead are being mourned, among whom are many of the Galician Jews who were expelled from Hungary.”

Did you read that?

STREICHER: That might be possible. It says “thousands,” thousands are being mourned. That is no proof that millions were killed. There are no details as to how they came to their end.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: If that is the explanation you want us to accept we will leave it.

Just go on again to the next page, will you? The 12th of December 1941, a month later:

“According to news which has arrived from several sources, thousands of Jews—one even speaks of many thousands—are said to have been executed in Odessa”—and so on.—“Similar reports reach us from Kiev and other Russian cities.”

Did you read that?

STREICHER: I do not know; and if I had read it then it would not change a thing. That is no proof.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: But you have told the Tribunal, you know, that there was nothing except hints of disappearance. Doesn’t it show that you were not telling the truth when you read these extracts?

STREICHER: In that case may I say the following? When the war started we no longer received the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_. During the later years one could only get the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_ through the Police. We got that paper, toward the end, into Germany by smuggling. On one occasion we asked the Police to provide us with foreign newspapers and this weekly, and we were told that it was not possible. But we nevertheless got it. What I mean to say by this is that I did not read every one of those issues. The issues which I did read were confiscated on my farm. Whatever is underlined has been read by me or it was read by my editor in chief. I cannot, therefore, guarantee that I read every article.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: No, I appreciate that and that is why we have quite a number of them. You see, we have an extract for practically every week or month over the course of 3 years.

I would just like you to turn to Page 30-A of the “A” bundle. I just want you to see what you were writing after having heard, or after having read, or anyway after those copies of the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_ had been published. This is a leading article by yourself.

“If the danger of the reproduction of that curse of God in the Jewish blood is finally to come to an end, then there is only one way open—the extermination of that people whose father is the devil.”

And is the word that you use for extermination there “Ausrottung,” rooting out, extirpation?

STREICHER: First of all, I would like to ask whether this issue is known to my defense counsel, and if the translation is correct?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: It does not matter. He has copies of all this and he will be able to protect your interests. We are now just testing the truth of the evidence that you have given.

Can you tell me, is that “extermination”? Does that mean murder of Jews? What else can it mean?

STREICHER: It depends on the whole context. In that case I want you to read the whole article.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Well, if there is anything in the rest of the article which can be helpful to you, your counsel will have an opportunity to see the article and be able to put it before the Tribunal. I can assure you that the remainder of your articles, as a general rule, do not assist your case.

STREICHER: When that article appeared, mass killing had already taken place a long time ago.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well. Well now, we will not go through this at any length.

If you will look at your “B” bundle, your bundle of extracts from the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_...

THE PRESIDENT: I think you should draw his attention to the date on Page 30-A.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I am very much obliged to Your Lordship.

[_Turning to the defendant._] The 25th of December 1941.

If you will glance at “B” bundle you will see a number of extracts going from Page A to Page 21. Now, I would like you to glance at Page 24 of that “B” bundle.

STREICHER: Page 24?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Yes, Page 24. This is an article which appeared in the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_ on the 27th of November 1942. I just wondered whether you read this:

“At the Zionist Congress of Switzerland the representative of the ‘Jewish Agency’ in Geneva... gave a report on European Jewry.... The number of victims goes into millions. If the present conditions continue and the German program is carried out, it is to be reckoned that, instead of 6 or 7 million Jews in Europe only 2 million will still be left.”

Then there are the three last lines of the extract:

“The Jews who were there had mostly been deported to the notorious unknown destination further to the East. At the end of this winter the number of victims will be 4 million.”

Is that what you call a hint of disappearance of Jews from the East?

STREICHER: I cannot recollect that I have ever read that but I do want to say that if I had read it I would not have believed it.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Well now, let us just turn to the “A” bundle again and look at the article that you wrote on the 17th of December 1942. It is Page 34-A. This is an article which is initialed “STR” so I presume it was written by you.

“The London newspaper, _The Times_, of the 16th of September 1942 published a...”

STREICHER: I have not got it yet.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Page 34-A.

STREICHER: Just a minute.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Find it for him. It is headed: “Eye for Eye, Tooth for Tooth.”

“The London newspaper, _The Times_, of 16 September 1942 published a resolution which had been unanimously passed by the Board of Deputies of British Jews. This resolution expresses the grief and horror of the Anglo-Jewish Community at the unspeakable atrocities committed by Germany and her allies and vassals against the Jews of Europe which had only one aim, to exterminate the whole Jewish population of Europe in cold blood.”

Now, you must have read of that in _The Times_ because you say so.

STREICHER: Yes.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES:

“Strange how the Jews of the Anglo-Jewish Community suddenly begin to prick up their ears. When the second World War began the Führer of the German nation warned the Jewish warmongers against plunging the world into a blood bath again. Since then the German Führer has warned and prophesied again and again that the second World War, instigated by world Jewry, must necessarily lead to the destruction of Jewry. In his last speech too, the Führer again referred to his prophecies.”

Did you write that?

STREICHER: Yes, this is merely a quotation. It refers to a forecast from the Führer, of which nobody could possibly tell what it really meant.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well.

If you had not even read that or the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_, did you ever hear of the declaration of the United Nations which was made on the 17th of December 1942?

[_The document was submitted to the defendant._]

Do you remember hearing of that? You appear to have been reading _The Times_; you appear to have been reading some copies of the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_. Maybe you heard of this declaration which was published in London, Washington, and Moscow at the same time with the assent and support of all Allied nations and dominions. I will just read it to you and see if you remember it:

“The attention of the Belgian, Czechoslovak, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norwegian, Polish, Soviet, United Kingdom, United States, and Yugoslav Governments and also the French National Committee has been drawn to numerous reports from Europe that the German authorities, not content with denying to persons of Jewish race in all the territories over which their barbarous rule has been extended the most elementary human rights, are now carrying into effect Hitler’s often repeated intention to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe.

“From all the occupied countries Jews are being transported in conditions of appalling horror and brutality to Eastern Europe. In Poland, which has been made the principal Nazi slaughterhouse, the ghettos established by the German invaders are being systematically emptied of all Jews except a few highly skilled workers required for war industries. None of those taken away are ever heard of again. The able-bodied are slowly worked to death in labor camps. The infirm are left to die of exposure and starvation, or are deliberately massacred in mass executions.

“The number of victims of these bloody cruelties is reckoned in many hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent men, women, and children.

“The above-mentioned Governments and the French National Committee condemn, in the strongest possible terms, this bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination. They declare that such events can only strengthen the resolve of all freedom-loving peoples to overthrow the barbarous Hitlerite tyranny. They reaffirm their solemn resolution to ensure that those responsible for the crimes shall not escape retribution, and to press on with the necessary practical measures to this end.”

Did you never hear of this declaration?

STREICHER: I do not know, but if I should have heard of it, then I would have to say the following:

After the seizure of power the foreign press published so many atrocity stories, which turned out to be rumors, that I would have had no reason to believe anything like this; nor is there any mention here that millions of Jews were killed.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Well, you see, it isn’t altogether uncorroborated. You say you had no reason to believe it; but your _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_, which you were subscribing to, was saying exactly the same thing.

Would you look at Page 26-B of the “B” bundle? That is the declaration of the United Nations of the 17th of December. Just see what the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_ says on the 18th. And there I quote the second paragraph:

“At that time the Polish Government in London gave the number of Jews executed as 700,000. The Berlin radio hereupon declared that these reports were untrue, but admitted that in Poland ‘Jews’ had had to be executed because they carried out acts of sabotage.”

Then the last paragraph quoted:

“‘Up to the end of September 1942,’ writes the _Daily Telegraph_, ‘2 million Jews have lost their lives in Germany and in the countries occupied by the Axis, and it is to be feared that the number of victims will be doubled by the end of this year.’”

Did you happen to read that article?

STREICHER: I cannot remember having read it, but I would not have believed it if I had.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: You see, there is another article in that same paper on the 23rd of December, in the same terms; another on the 30th of December; and another on the 8th of January. Look at what it says on the 8th of January:

“The Polish Government in London has issued a new declaration which states that all the information received agrees that a third of the 3 million odd Jews have lost their lives.”

Did you read that?

STREICHER: I do not know, but I have to repeat, I would not have believed it.

LT. COL GRIFFITH-JONES: Well now, just let’s see just what you were writing on the 28th of January. Look at 35-A of your own bundle; 35-A. Now just see what your Chief Editor, the witness you are going to call, I understand, Hiemer—see what he has got to say first of all:

“But the ghetto too, which has today been re-established in nearly all European countries, is only an interim solution, for mankind once awakened will not merely solve the ghetto question but the Jewish question in its totality. A time will come when the present demands, of the Jews will be fulfilled. The ghetto will have disappeared—and with it Jewry.”

What is he referring to, if he isn’t referring to the mass killing, murder, of the Jewish race?

STREICHER: That was a statement of his opinion, his conviction. That conviction must be understood in the same way as something which a Jewish author wrote in his book in America. Erich Kauffmann wrote that German men capable of fathering children should be sterilized, and in that manner the German people should be exterminated. It was at the same time that Hiemer wrote his article, and I want to say that the very severe tone in _Der Stürmer_ at that time was due to that book from America.

The interrogating officers know—and so does my counsel—that I have repeatedly pointed out that I wanted that book to be produced. It was in the _Völkischer Beobachter_.

If in America an author called Erich Kauffmann can publicly demand that all men in Germany capable of fathering children should be sterilized, for the purpose of exterminating the German people, then I say, eye for eye and tooth for tooth. This is a theoretical literary matter.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well. I am sure we have heard your explanation. Let’s see what you have to say about your own article on the same date. I quote from the middle of the next paragraph:

“But now, in the fourth year of this war, world Jewry is beginning in its retrospective considerations to understand that the destiny of Jewry is finding its fulfillment at the hands of German National Socialism.”

What did you mean by that? Perhaps I should have quoted a little earlier, going back to the beginning:

“When, with the outbreak of the second World War, world Jewry again began to manifest themselves as warmongers, Adolf Hitler announced to the world from the platform of the German Reichstag that the World War conjured up by world Jewry would result in the self-destruction of Jewry. This prophecy was the first big warning. It was met with derision from the Jews, as were all the subsequent warnings.”

And then you go on to say:

“But now, in the fourth year of this war, world Jewry is beginning in its retrospective considerations to understand that the destiny of Jewry is finding its fulfillment at the hands of German National Socialism.”

What did you mean by that?

STREICHER: Pardon me?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: What do you mean by saying “World Jewry is finding its fulfillment at the hands of National Socialism”? How did you mean that National Socialism was finding the fulfillment of Jewry’s destiny?

STREICHER: National Socialism could not fulfill the fate, that is to say, find the solution, since the Führer intervened with the hand of destiny. That was not a solution.

During an interrogation I pointed out that I who personally wanted a total solution, was, right from the beginning, against trying to solve the Jewish problem by means of pogroms. If I said that the destiny of Jewry was to be fulfilled by National Socialism, then I wanted to say that through National Socialism the world would gain the knowledge and the realization that the Jewish problem must be solved internationally.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Let’s just go on.

“That which the Führer of the German people announced to the world as a prophecy at the beginning of this second World War is now being fulfilled with unrelenting inevitability. World Jewry, which wanted to reap big dividends from the blood of the warring nations, is rushing with gigantic steps toward its extirpation.”

And again you use the word “Ausrottung.”

Does that mean just as it sounds, as though the fulfillment that you were aiming at was warning the world about Jewry? What do you mean by it? “Rushing with gigantic steps toward its extirpation”—Ausrottung. What did you mean by it?

STREICHER: This is a warning. The Führer made a prophecy; nobody could interpret that prophecy properly. The prophecy was not quoted only in this article, but in 10 others. Again and again we referred to these prophecies, the first of which had been made in 1929. Today we know what the Führer wanted to say; at that time we did not. And I confess quite openly that with this quotation we wanted to warn world Jewry: “Against their threat, this threat.”

So as to defend myself I might mention in this connection that the author, Dr. Emil Ludwig Kohn, who had left Germany and emigrated to France, had written in the paper _Le Fanal_, in 1934, “Hitler does not want war, but he is being forced into it. Britain has the last word.” Thus...

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: We are not discussing war now. We are discussing the extermination, the mass murder of Jews, by the National Socialists. That is what we are discussing. Let me read on:

“When Adolf Hitler stepped before the German people 20 years ago to submit to them the National Socialist demands which pointed the way into the future, he also made the promise which was to have the gravest repercussions; that of freeing the world from its Jewish tormentors. How wonderful it is to know that this great man and leader is following up this promise with practical action. It will be the greatest deed in the history of mankind.”

Do you say that you are not putting forward propaganda for the policy of mass extermination which the Nazi Government had set out to do?

STREICHER: We too had freedom of the press like democratic countries. Every author knew of the forecast, which perhaps later on turned out to be a fact, and could write about it. That is what I did.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well.

STREICHER: But for my defense, Mr. Prosecutor, I want to be allowed to say that wars too can be mass murder, with their bombs, _et cetera_. And if it is proved that someone says that we are forcing Hitler into war, then I can certainly say that a man who knows that Hitler is being forced into war is a mass murderer.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: With the permission of the Tribunal I am going to interrupt you again because we are not discussing whether or not Hitler was forced into war. We will leave that now.

Just let us go on and see if you are really speaking the truth in saying that while you are writing these articles you are not perfectly well aware of what was happening in the Eastern territories.

We got as far as January 1943. I would like you to just look at one or two more of the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_ and see if you remember reading any of these. Will you look at Page 30-B the 26th of February, in your “B” bundle?

“Exchange reports from the Polish Government circles in London that Warsaw, Lvov, Lodz and other cities have been ‘liquidated,’ and that nobody from the ghettos remained alive. The last investigations have ascertained that only about 650,000 Jews remain out of 2,800,000.”

Listen to me. Did you read that? Do you remember it?

STREICHER: I do not know. For months, perhaps half a year, we did not get an issue, but if I had read it, I would not have believed that either.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Did you believe Hitler? If you will turn over the page to 31-B, did you believe Hitler? According to the last two lines quoted in the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_ of the 5th of March 1943: “Hitler, in his proclamation of 24 February, again proclaimed the extermination of the Jews in Europe as his goal.”

Did you believe your own beloved Führer when he was saying the same things as the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_, the United Nations, and _The Times_ newspaper in London?

STREICHER: No, I declare that whoever got to know the Führer’s deepest emotions and his soul, as I have personally, and then later had to learn from his testament that he, in full possession of his faculties, consciously gave the order for mass extermination, is confronted with a riddle. I state here...

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: We really don’t want another long speech about the Führer. Just turn over the page and look at what is being said on the 26th of March:

“The report of the Polish Government on the measures against the Jewish population is published in full in the English press. A passage reads, ‘In the town of Vilna 50,000 Jews were murdered, in Rovno 14,000; in Lvov half of the total Jewish population.’

“Many details are also given about the use of poison gas, as at Chelm, of electricity in Belzec, of the deportations from Warsaw, the surrounding of blocks of houses, and of the attacks with machine guns.”

Did you read that one?

STREICHER: I do not know. However, that shootings must have occurred, of course, where Jews committed sabotage, _et cetera_, is self-evident. During a war that is considered as a matter of course. However, the figures which are quoted here were just simply not believable.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Yes. I understand you to say that now, but what I do not understand is what you meant when you said this morning that the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_ made no mention of murders and gave no figures. You didn’t say that the figures were unbelievable; you told this Tribunal, on your oath, that the newspaper contained nothing except the hints of disappearance, with no mention of figures. What did you mean by that?

STREICHER: I have said the truth under oath, but it is possible that one might not remember everything. During an interrogation some time back I stated, based on memory, that an issue must exist which mentions the disappearance of Jews, and so on. It is in the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_, and I thought I said that it was in 1943 and it is true. If one article after the other is put before me—well, even if I had seen it, how can I remember it? But that I, under oath, should have deliberately told you an untruth, that is, at any rate, not so.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: We will deal with the article you mention in 1943 in one moment; but just before we do that, just see if you believe your own staff. Turn, will you, to 38-A, M-139. Now, on the 6th of May it so happens just after those last three extracts from the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_ we have looked at, within 2 or 3 months, 1 or 2 months afterwards your newspaper is publishing this article. It is headed “Children of the Devil.”

“_Der Stürmer_ paid a visit to the ghettos in the East. _Der Stürmer_ sent its photographic reporter to various ghettos in the East; a member of _Der Stürmer’s_ staff is well acquainted with the Jews. Nothing can surprise him easily. But what our contributor saw in these ghettos was a unique experience for him. He wrote, ‘What my eyes and my Leica camera saw here convinced me that the Jews are not human beings but children of the devil and the spawn of crime.... It is hard to see how it was possible that this scum of humanity was for centuries looked upon as God’s chosen people by the non-Jews. ... This satanic race really has no right to exist.’”

Now, you have heard of what was happening in the ghettos in the East during 1942 and 1943? Are you really telling this Tribunal that your photographer went with his camera to those ghettos and found out nothing about the mass murder of Jews?

STREICHER: Yes, otherwise he would have reported to us about it.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Warsaw ghetto, you remember, exterminated, wiped out in April 1943. Your photographer must have been around just about that time, if you were writing this on the 6th of May, if he had just returned. Did you think he could have been there looking at ghettos for _Der Stürmer_, for Julius Streicher, the Jew-baiter, and have discovered nothing of what was happening in the ghetto in Warsaw and elsewhere?

STREICHER: I can only remember that immediately after the end of the Polish campaign a Viennese reporter went over there, made films and made reports, in 1942. I would like to ask—is there a name, a signature there, to show by whom it was written? One thing I know is that the ghetto was destroyed; I read it in a summary, an illustrated report which I think originated in the Ministry of Propaganda. But as to the destruction of the ghetto during an uprising—well, I consider that legal; from my point of view it was right. But mass murders in the ghetto in Warsaw are something I never heard of.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Now, just let’s look at the article to which you referred a moment ago. Will you look at 44-A of the document book?

My Lord, this is the same as was included at Page 53 in the original document book; it was Document Number 1965-PS, Exhibit Number GB-176, but there is slightly more of the extract quoted at Page 44-A.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Now, I just want you to examine for the last time whether or not you are speaking the truth in telling the Tribunal that you did not know what was happening. You quote in that article from the Swiss newspaper, the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_, of the 27th August 1943—you will see that date, My Lord, in the middle of the first paragraph—I start now from that line in the middle:

“The Swiss Jewish newspaper goes on to say, ‘The Jews of Europe, with the exception of those in England and of insignificant Jewish communities in the few neutral countries, have disappeared, so to speak. The Jewish reservoir of the East that was able to counterbalance the force of assimilation in the West no longer exists.’”

That is the end of your quotation from the newspaper, and you go on to say:

“This is not a Jewish lie; it is really true that the Jews have, ‘so to speak,’ disappeared from Europe and that the ‘Jewish reservoir of the East’ from which the Jewish pestilence spread for centuries among the European nations has ceased to exist. If the Swiss newspaper wishes to affirm that the Jews did not expect this kind of development when they plunged the nations into the second World War, this is to be believed; but already at the beginning of the war the Führer of the German Nation prophesied the events that have taken place. He said that the second World War would swallow those who had conjured it.”

Now, are you really saying that when that article was written you did not know how to interpret the word “disappearance,” the disappearance of the Jews from the East? Are you really telling the Tribunal that?

STREICHER: Yes, the word “disappear” after all does not mean extermination _en masse_. This deals with a quotation from the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_ and is a repeated quotation of what the Führer had prophesied.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Well, now, would you look at the article from which you quote there, which you will find at Page 36-B; and I would like you to follow it, and we will read the two together. Now, the particular paragraph which I want to read in the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_ is that quotation which I have just read to you and you will find the same quotation.

My Lord, it starts at the end of the eighth but last line, “The Jews were” or rather “The Jews of Europe...” Have you got them in front of you, Defendant?

STREICHER: I shall listen to you.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: It would be better, I think, if you followed it. I want to help you as much as possible. Page 44-A and 36-B. I will read slowly first of all from your _Stürmer_ again:

“The Jews of Europe, with the exception of those in England and of insignificant Jewish communities in the few neutral countries, have, so to speak, disappeared...”

and you will see that you then go on in the quotation and say:

“...the Jewish reservoir of the East which was able to counterbalance the force of assimilation in the West no longer exists.”

Now, would you look at the original article:

“The Jews of Europe”—this is 36-B—“the Jews of Europe, with the exception of those in England and of insignificant Jewish communities in the few neutral countries, have, so to speak, disappeared.”

Now—there you go on, “The Jewish reservoir of the East”—the original goes on—“three million dead, the same number outlawed; many thousands, all over the world, mentally and physically broken.”

Are you telling this Tribunal now that on the 27th of August, or when you read that article of the 27th of August, you didn’t know that Jews were being murdered in the East and that you had not read of those things in the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_?

STREICHER: Whether I had read it or not, I would not have believed it, that 3 million Jews had been killed. That is something I would not have believed, and that is why I left it out, at any rate. Anyhow, the German censorship would not have allowed the spreading of something which is not credible.

THE PRESIDENT: You didn’t read the last part of the line, did you?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: [_Repeating._] “...were mentally and physically broken. That is the result of the new order.” I am very much obliged to you.

[_Turning to the defendant._] “That is the result,” you say, “of the ‘new order’ in Europe...”

You say you didn’t believe it. Is that what you say now, that you must have read it—must you not?

STREICHER: Yes.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: But you just didn’t believe it; is that right?

STREICHER: No, I did not believe it.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Even if you didn’t believe it, when you were reading this newspaper more or less regularly, when your cameraman had been to the ghettos in the East, did you think it right to go on, week after week, in your newspaper crying for the extermination, murder, of the Jews?

STREICHER: That is not correct. It is not true that murder was demanded week after week. And I repeat again, the sharpening of our tone was the answer to the voice from America that called for our mass murder in Germany—eye for eye, tooth for tooth. If a Jew, Erich Kauffmann, demands mass murders in Germany, then perhaps I, as an author, can say that the Jews too should be exterminated. That is a literary matter. But the mass murders had taken place a long time before without our having known about them; and I state here that if I had known what had in fact happened in the East, then I would not have used these quotations at all.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: But, Defendant, you must have known then, must you not, after reading that article, after sending your cameraman, after the United Nations published their declaration, after Hitler’s prophecies had been made again and again in his proclamations, after you said his prophecy had been fulfilled? You really say you didn’t know?

STREICHER: The cameraman is at your disposal. He is in Vienna, and I ask to have him brought here. And I state that this cameraman reported nothing, and could not have reported anything, about mass murders.

THE PRESIDENT: I think we might adjourn now.

[_A recess was taken._]

DR. MARX: Mr. President, with the permission of the Tribunal, and in the interest of clarification of the facts, I should like to point out the following: The Prosecutor, Sir Griffith-Jones, has mentioned a document, Page 38-A from _Der Stürmer_ of 6 May 1943. That seems to be an error, because we are dealing here with _Der Stürmer_ of 6 March 1943.

That date is of the greatest importance because if the photographer of _Der Stürmer_ published a report of 6 March in _Der Stürmer_, then he must have been at the ghetto in Warsaw before 6 March 1943. Presumably...

THE PRESIDENT: Why do you say 6 March? The document I have before me has 6 May.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: There has been a mistake, I am afraid, in the German that Dr. Marx has. I have the original before me, which is 6 May 1943.

DR. MARX: Excuse me. At the present moment I cannot recall when the destruction of the ghetto of Warsaw took place. That was Document 1061-PS.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I cannot remember for the moment the number of the document, but the date was, I think from memory, from the 1st to the 23rd of April.

DR. MARX: Then, of course, my remark is without foundation. Please excuse me.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Now we had just dealt with the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_ issue for 27 August, the copy that you quoted from. I just refer you to one more copy of that newspaper. Would you look at Page 37-B, which is an issue of 10 September 1943:

“Statistics presented by the Convening Committee showed that 5 millions out of the 8.5 million Jews of Europe had died or been deported ... About 3 million Jews had lost their lives through forced labor and deportation.”

Did you read that one?

STREICHER: I do not know, and again I would not have believed it. To this day I do not believe that 5 million were killed. I consider it technically impossible that that could have happened. I do not believe it. I have not received proof of that up until now.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: It is quite clear that there were plenty of figures for you, quoted in this _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_ over the period that we are discussing. Plenty of figures, it now turns out, doesn’t it?

STREICHER: Pardon?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: We will go on. Now, I just want to put one or two further articles of your own to you. You remember what I am suggesting, that you are inciting the German people to murder. We know now that at least you had read one article in the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_ where murder is mentioned. I just want to see what you go on to publish in your own paper after that date.

Would you look at Page 47-A. This is an article by yourself on 6 January 1944. This is after you had been living on your estate for some time.

“After the National Socialist uprising in Germany, a development began in Europe, too, from which one can expect that it will free this continent for all time of the Jewish disintegrator and exploiter of nations; and, over and above this, that the German example will, after a victorious termination of the second World War, bring about the destruction of the Jewish world tormentor on the other continents as well.”

What example was the German nation setting to the other nations of the world? What example do you mean there?

STREICHER: This article corroborates what I have been saying all along. I spoke of an international solution of the Jewish question. I was convinced that if Germany had won this war or had been victorious over Bolshevism, then the world would have agreed that an understanding should be reached with the other nations for an international solution of the Jewish question. If I wrote here about destruction, it is not to be understood as destruction by mass killing; as I have said, that is an expression; I have to point out that I do not believe that Erich Kauffmann really wanted to kill the German people by sterilization, but he wrote it, and we sometimes wrote in the same manner, echoing the sounds that we heard in the other camp.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: You have not yet told us what is this international solution that you are advocating by talking about extermination; if it is not murder, what is it? What is the solution?

STREICHER: I have already said that I founded the Anti-Semitic Union, and through this Anti-Semitic Union we wanted to create movements among the nations which should, above and beyond governments, act in such a way that an international possibility would be created, such as has been represented today here in this Trial—thus, I conceived it, to form an international congress center which would solve the Jewish question by the creation of a Jewish state and thereby destroy the power of the Jews within the nations.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: That is your answer—that you were advocating a Jewish state? Is that all that this comes to? Is it simply that you were advocating a Jewish national home? Is that what you have been talking about in all these extracts that we have read? Is that the solution which you are advocating?

STREICHER: Well, I do not know what you want with that question. Of course, that is the solution.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well. Let us just go on now. Turn to Page 48-A now, will you? This is 24 January 1944, “Whoever does what a Jew does is a scoundrel, a criminal, and he who repeats and wishes to copy him deserves the same fate—annihilation, death.”

Are you still advocating a national Jewish home?

STREICHER: Yes, that has nothing to do with the big political plan. If you take every statement by a writer, every statement from a daily newspaper, as an example, and want to prove a political aim by it, then you miss the point. You have to distinguish between a newspaper article and a great political aim.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well, let us just turn now to the next page, 2 March 1944, “Eternal night must come over the born criminal race of Jews so that eternal day may bless awakening non-Jewish mankind.”

Were they going to have eternal night in their national Jewish state? Is that what you wanted?

STREICHER: That is an anti-Semitic play of words. Again it has nothing to do with the great political aim.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: It may be an anti-Semitic play of words, but the only meaning it can have is murder. Is that not true?

STREICHER: No.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Will you turn to the next page, 25 May 1944; and I remind you that these are all after you must have read of the murder in _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_. I quote the second paragraph:

“How can we overcome this danger and restore humanity to health? Just as the individual human being is able to defend himself against contagious diseases only if he proclaims war against the cause of the disease, the germ, so the world can be restored to health only when the most terrible germ of all times, the Jew, has been removed. It is of no avail to battle against the outward symptoms of the world disease without rendering the morbific agents innocuous. The disease will break out again sooner or later. The cause and the carrier of the disease, the germ, will see to that. But if the nations are to be restored to health and are to remain healthy in the future, then the germ of the Jewish world plague must be destroyed, root and branch.”

Is that what you mean? Are you saying there when you say “must be destroyed root and branch”—did you mean to say “ought to be given a Jewish national state”?

STREICHER: Yes, it is a far cry from such a statement in an article to the act, or to the will, to commit mass murder.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Turn over to the 10th of August. “When it loses this struggle, Judaism will be ruined, then the Jew will be extinguished. Then will Judaism be annihilated down to the last man.”

Are we to read from these words: Provide the Jews with a Jewish national state?

STREICHER: That is a vision of the future. I would like to call it an expression of a prophetic vision. But it is not incitement to kill 5 million Jews. That is an opinion, a matter, of belief, of conviction.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: It is the prophetic vision of what you wanted, is it not—of what you have been advocating now for the last 4 years—the beginning of the war? Isn’t that what it is?

STREICHER: Mr. Prosecutor, I cannot tell you today what I may have been thinking years ago at a certain moment when writing an article. But still I admit that when I saw lying before me on the table declarations from the Jewish front, many declarations saying, “the German nation has to be destroyed; bomb the cities, do not spare women, children, or old men”—if one has declarations like these in front of one, it is possible that things will come from one’s pen such as I have often written.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: You know, do you not, now, even if you do not believe the full figures, that millions of Jews have been murdered since the beginning of the war? Do you know that? You have heard the evidence, have you not?

STREICHER: I believe it...

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I only wanted to know whether you had heard that evidence. You can answer “yes” or “no,” and I presume it will be “yes.”

STREICHER: Yes, I have to say, evidence for me is only the testament of the Führer. There he states that the mass executions took place upon his orders. That I believe. Now I believe it.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Do you think that it would have been possible to carry out the extermination of 6 million Jews in 1921? Do you think the German people would have stood for it? Do you think it would have been possible under any regime in 1921 to have carried out the murder of 6 million men, women, and children of the Jewish race?

STREICHER: Whether that would have been possible with the knowledge of the people—no, it would not have been possible. The prosecutor himself has said here that since 1937 the Party had full control over the people. Now even if the people had known this, according to the opinion of the Prosecution, they could not have done anything against that dictatorship because of that control. But the people did not know it. That is my belief, my conviction, and my knowledge.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Was it possible to exterminate people in that way only after some 20 years of incitement and propaganda by you and other Nazis? Is that what made that possible?

STREICHER: I deny that the population was incited. It was enlightened, and sometimes a harsh word may have been directed against the other side as an answer. It was enlightenment, not incitement. And if we want to keep our place before history I have to state again and again that the German people did not want any killings, whether individually or _en masse_.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I am not going to let you go into another history about the German people. I am going to remind you of what you have said...

STREICHER: Adolf Hitler...

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I am going to remind you of what you said yesterday. I read from the transcript: You speak of a Jewish question at the time—that is 1923—“I would like to say that the public distinguished Jews only by their religion; to speak about a Jewish problem then would have been nonsense.”

Was that because there was no Jewish problem then, and that the Jewish problem had only been created by you and the Nazi regime?

STREICHER: It was my aim, and I reached that goal in part: If the laws which in the future should make impossible sexual intercourse between different races, that is to say if that should become law—then it would make the public realize that to be a Jew is not a point of religion but of people and race. I helped to create that basis. But mass killings were not the result of the enlightenment, or as the Prosecution say, incitement. Mass killings were the last acts of will of a great man of history who was probably desperate because he saw that he would not win.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I have no further questions. Perhaps I might be allowed to just sort out the exhibits and then mention to the Tribunal their numbers. If the Tribunal would agree, those that I have put in evidence, which are the other parts of the bundle other than I have actually quoted from—perhaps I could put them all in as one number and hand the exhibits in to the clerk, if that would be the convenient course.

THE PRESIDENT: I think so, yes. If they are in one bundle and you are going to give one number to a number of documents, it had better be in one bundle, had it not?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, do you want to re-examine?

DR. MARX: I do not consider it necessary any more.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the defendant can return to the dock. Dr. Marx, will you continue the defendant’s case?

DR. MARX: I call now, with the permission of the Court, the witness Fritz Herrwerth.

[_The witness Herrwerth took the stand._]

THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?

FRITZ HERRWERTH (Witness): Fritz Herrwerth.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: “I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.”

[_The witness repeated the oath in German._]

You may sit down.

DR. MARX: How long have you known the Defendant Streicher?

HERRWERTH: Since the Party Rally in 1934.

DR. MARX: When did you enter his service and in what capacity?

HERRWERTH: I was employed on 15 October 1934, in Nuremberg, not in the personal service of Herr Streicher himself, but in the municipal motor pool. However, I worked for the then Gauleiter Streicher.

DR. MARX: When did you leave that service?

HERRWERTH: In August 1943.

DR. MARX: For what reason?

HERRWERTH: It was a personal dispute, and mainly due to my fault.

DR. MARX: Did you have any other tasks to carry out for Herr Streicher?

HERRWERTH: Yes.

DR. MARX: And which?

HERRWERTH: Well, whatever came up. I also did agricultural work at the end.

DR. MARX: Thus you were very often with Streicher?

HERRWERTH: Yes.

DR. MARX: And therefore you knew about the most important incidents during that period?

HERRWERTH: Yes. I do not know, however, what you call important incidents. There were things that I do not know about, that is, at least I assume that.

DR. MARX: I will ask you later in detail.

HERRWERTH: Yes, if you please.

DR. MARX: The Defendant Streicher is accused of having caused acts of violence against the Jews and of having participated in these acts. Do you know of any such case?

HERRWERTH: Not a single one.

DR. MARX: Will you please wait until the end of my question, and then I shall say “end of question.” On 9 November 1938, did you drive Streicher back to Nuremberg from Munich, and when? End of question.

HERRWERTH: It was on 9 November, yes. I do not know the time exactly. At that time Streicher left Munich a bit earlier, and it may have been about—I do not know for sure—9 o’clock perhaps.

DR. MARX: Did Streicher know already during that ride back that something was to be done that night against the Jewish population?

HERRWERTH: No, he knew nothing about that.

DR. MARX: Then, during the night of 9 November, did you witness a conversation between Streicher and the SA Leader, Von Obernitz?

HERRWERTH: Yes.

DR. MARX: Where did that conversation take place?

HERRWERTH: In order to answer that question, I have to explain a little further. When Herr Streicher went to bed, I was usually with him or the house superintendent. On that evening Herr Streicher went to bed earlier than usual. I do not know the reason. And that concluded my work for the day. I went from Herr Streicher to the Casino of the Gauleitung. That was in the cellar of the Gauleitung building on Schlageterstrasse. I played cards there. And then the former SA Obergruppenführer, Von Obernitz, came and called me, as was customary, by the name of Fritz and told me he had to speak to Herr Streicher very urgently; and I answered him that Herr Streicher had already gone to bed. Then he said, “Then I must rouse him,” and he told me he would assume the responsibility; it was an important affair. Herr Von Obernitz went to Herr Streicher’s apartment in my car. Herr Streicher’s bedroom is above my apartment. I had the keys and of course I could get in at any time.

On the way to the apartment at night I noticed that many SA men were in the streets. I asked Herr Von Obernitz the reason for that. He told me that that night something was going to happen; the Jewish homes were to be destroyed. He did not say anything further to me.

I accompanied Herr Von Obernitz all the way to the bed of Herr Streicher. Herr Von Obernitz then reported to Streicher about what was happening that night. I cannot recall the details very well any more, but I believe that he said that that night the Jewish homes were to be destroyed. Herr Streicher was, if I may say so, surprised. He had not known anything about it. He said literally to Herr Von Obernitz, and I remember that very clearly, “That is wrong. One does not solve the Jewish question that way. Do what you have been ordered. I shall have no part in it. If anything should occur so that you need me, then you may come for me.” I can also mention that thereupon Herr Von Obernitz said that Hitler had declared that the SA should be allowed to have a fling as retribution for what had occurred in Paris in connection with Herr Vorn Rath. Streicher stayed in bed and did not go out during that night.

DR. MARX: Did Herr Von Obernitz mention anything about the fact that the synagogues were to be set on fire?

HERRWERTH: I believe so, yes. But, as far as I remember, Herr Streicher refused to do that, too, because the synagogue, as far as I know, was burned down by the regular fire department, and upon orders from Herr Von Obernitz.

DR. MARX: How do you know that?

HERRWERTH: I was there.

DR. MARX: Did you watch it?

HERRWERTH: Yes. I was at the synagogue during the night.

DR. MARX: And how could one assume that the regular fire department started the fire?

HERRWERTH: How that could be assumed I do not know, but I saw it. The regular fire department started the fire.

DR. MARX: Were you there in time to see how the fire was started or did you arrive when the building was already on fire?

HERRWERTH: The building was not yet on fire, but the fire department was there already.

DR. MARX: Is that right?

HERRWERTH: I can say nothing else.

DR. MARX: Did Herr Streicher at that time mention anything about the fact that he was afraid of a new wave of excitement on the part of the world press if the synagogue was burned? Did he say that that is why he refused to do it?

HERRWERTH: I believe so, yes, but I could not say definitely; but, if I remember correctly, they spoke about that.

DR. MARX: Did Obernitz say from whom he had received the order?

HERRWERTH: He only repeated what Hitler had said—the SA should be allowed to have a fling.

DR. MARX: Is it correct that you, Witness, told your wife during the same night about that conversation between Obernitz and Streicher?

HERRWERTH: I believe I did not speak about the conversation; but when I walked down from the second floor to the ground floor through my apartment, I told my wife that I would probably be a little late because that night that action was going to be started; I told her briefly what was happening but nothing about the conversation.

DR. MARX: Then, later you were at the Pleikershof when Streicher had been forced to retire there or had retired?

HERRWERTH: Yes.

DR. MARX: Do you remember an incident where the future Frau Streicher spoke about the incidents at Magdeburg which had occurred there the same night?

HERRWERTH: No, I know nothing of that.

DR. MARX: Did you not tell the then Frau Merkel that she should not talk about these incidents because Streicher always got very excited about them?

HERRWERTH: I can recall that Herr Streicher once said that he had been right in his opinion, for, not long after that night he received information—I do not know through whom—that, for instance, the glass for the window panes had to be bought from Holland again. Herr Streicher said then that that was the first confirmation of the correctness of the opinion he had expressed at that time.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, just one moment.

Sir David, would it be convenient to you and the counsel for the Defendant Von Schirach if we discussed the question about the documents at 0930 tomorrow morning?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I will find out. Yes, counsel for Von Schirach says that he thinks it is all right.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, 0930 tomorrow morning.

DR. MARX: What observations did you make during your stay at Pleikershof about the attitude of Streicher with regard to the Jewish question? What was that about the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_?

HERRWERTH: Well, what do you want to know about the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_? Herr Streicher received it.

DR. MARX: Did he receive it regularly?

HERRWERTH: Yes, I believe I can say that quite certainly. I always saw large bundles of newspapers of the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_. They came continuously.

DR. MARX: Herr Streicher said that during the first years of the war he had great difficulty in getting that paper and the Police did not release it easily.

HERRWERTH: Yes, that can very well be. For I do not know, after all, of what year they were. I just saw them and it is difficult for me to tell now of what date these papers were.

DR. MARX: Yes, you said there were always large bundles of them.

HERRWERTH: Yes, on and off, but there were other newspapers too. Swiss newspapers were there, the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_, and so on. There were always so many newspapers lying about and among them I saw here and there the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_. I mean to say that it would not be possible for me to say how many there were.

DR. MARX: All right. Did Streicher speak at times about his knowledge of happenings in the East or of happenings in concentration camps in the East?

HERRWERTH: Well. Herr Streicher did not know anything at all about it. Thus he could not say anything about it. At least that is my conviction.

DR. MARX: Did you, then, ever speak to him about it?

HERRWERTH: Not that I know of; I did not know anything about it myself.

DR. MARX: Did you ever receive knowledge of a letter in which Streicher was reproached by Reichsführer SS Himmler because he treated the French prisoners too well? Did you understand me?

HERRWERTH: Yes, I understood, but I have to think about it. I know quite well that Herr Streicher once mentioned something about the treatment of prisoners. I know that the Frenchmen were treated very well, but whether the cause for that was a letter from Himmler I do not know.

DR. MARX: No, no. The cause for the good treatment, you mean?

HERRWERTH: No, the cause for Herr Streicher’s speaking about it. Herr Streicher spoke about reproaches against the good treatment of the Frenchmen; but I do not know whether the fact that he spoke about it was due to a letter from Himmler. But I do not believe that there was a single Frenchman who could complain in any way about the treatment.

DR. MARX: You were no longer present when the Frenchmen left?

HERRWERTH: No.

DR. MARX: Do you know about an incident when the publisher Fink came into the garden of Streicher’s home and admitted having lied to the police in an affair concerning shares?

HERRWERTH: The question must be put in detail, Mr. Attorney, for I do not know all about it, only part of it. I know that the then Director Fink stood in tears before Streicher, that he wailed, that he accused himself, saying that he was a rascal and a traitor. But why, I do not know. For Herr Streicher then walked farther into the garden with him, and I only saw that Herr Fink wept, and again heard how he accused himself.

DR. MARX: Do you know that Streicher at certain intervals brought people from the SPD and the KPD (Social Democratic Party and Communist Party) from the Dachau Concentration Camp?

HERRWERTH: Yes.

DR. MARX: How many do you suppose there were?

HERRWERTH: I do not know. It was every year around Christmas time. I estimate that there were about 100 to 150 men every year. They came from Dachau. Herr Streicher had dinner prepared for them in a separate room, in the Hotel Deutscher Hof, and I believe that used to be the family reunion—that is to say, the prisoners rejoined the members of their family. Streicher also saw to it that released prisoners found work, and he intervened personally for them.

DR. MARX: Did he also get work for one or another of these released persons?

HERRWERTH: Yes.

DR. MARX: What do you know about that?

HERRWERTH: I remember that three men, I believe, came into the Mars motorcycle factory. Herr Streicher at that time told the plenipotentiary of the German Labor Front to find positions for these people, as far as I remember.

DR. MARX: What was the attitude of Streicher when he found out that members of the Party had acquired cars and villas of Jewish property at very low prices?

HERRWERTH: I can still remember when Herr Streicher returned from Berlin. I do not know how much Herr Streicher knew at that time about these purchases; but at any rate, when Herr Streicher returned from Berlin where Herr Göring had expressed his views about these low-priced purchases of buildings, Herr Streicher, just arrived at the Nuremberg railroad station, said—and I heard it myself—that these purchases had to be nullified at once.

Besides, I know only about one case where a Party member had to do with the purchase of a house. I do not know whether there were more of them.

DR. MARX: Do you know whether Streicher was under surveillance by the Gestapo while on his farm and that there was a prohibition against visiting him there?

HERRWERTH: In answering the first question, I cannot say for sure that Criminal Police agents were there. I cannot affirm categorically that Herr Streicher was once under observation, but it could be safely assumed. I know of a woman who even stated that she had been photographed in the forest when she came from the railroad station to the farm. And what was the second question?

DR. MARX: Whether people were prohibited from visiting him.

HERRWERTH: Yes. I met various members of the Party within the city and whomever I asked said to me, “Impossible to get out there, impossible to get out there.” And if I asked who had issued the prohibition, then no one would talk about it; but as one heard it here and there, this prohibition was said to have been issued by the Deputy of the Führer, Herr Hess.

DR. MARX: Do you know anything about the fact that Streicher, when he found out that acts of violence against Jews or other political adversaries were intended, stopped them immediately?

HERRWERTH: Yes. At least, on the basis of his statements. He always said that that was wrong.

DR. MARX: Do you know of any case where he took measures against somebody who had been a party to such acts of violence? If you do not know it, say you do not know.

HERRWERTH: Very well, at this moment I cannot recall any case.

DR. MARX: Do you know anything about that affair concerning the Mars Works shares? What do you know about it?

HERRWERTH: Yes. I know about that case through statements made by Streicher at that time. I was not a witness to these events myself, but Herr Streicher once related to me what had happened. Shall I describe it briefly?

DR. MARX: Yes, but very condensed, please.

HERRWERTH: Streicher was in a Turkish bath at the time when the Director Fink and his adjutant, König, came and offered to sell the shares to Herr Streicher. Herr Streicher said, “What kind of shares are they?” The answer was, “They are shares of the Mars Works.” He said, “How many?” The answer was “100,000 marks’ worth.” Then Streicher said, “What do the shares cost?” He was told “5,000 marks.” Herr Streicher asked, “Why are these shares so cheap?” Finally Herr Fink said, I believe, “Because they are Jewish shares.”

Whoever knows Herr Streicher as I do, knows that Herr Streicher has never taken anything from a Jew. He protested very emphatically against the fact that such an offer had been made to him at all.

That seemed to settle the matter for the time being, and then suddenly the then Gauleiter Herr Streicher had the thought that with that money he could possibly construct the third Gau building. He mentioned that to the gentlemen as they left, and they decided to buy the shares. Herr Streicher forbade them to use Party money. Then both did not know what to do. Herr Streicher said he would advance these 5,000 marks.

That settled the case, but I had another experience later. It was about one and a half years after that trial that Streicher had had in Munich, when he was dismissed. At that time the wife of NSKK Obergruppenführer Zühlen came to me and asked whether I already knew that the criminal police was again in Nuremberg concerning the Streicher case. I said “no” to Frau Zühlen and added, “If they want to find out something why do they not come out to the farm to Herr Streicher himself? He will give them all the necessary information.”

After about 2 to 3 weeks, I met the Director of _Der Stürmer_, Fischer, successor to Herr Fink. He told me—but I would like to mention first that the shares, together with the 5,000 marks, were confiscated from Herr Streicher. The then Director Fischer told me that on that same day he had received a phone call from the trustee association, and that the trustee association had reported to Director Fischer that they had transferred to the account of _Der Stürmer_ the 5,000 marks which Streicher at that time had advanced for the purchase of the shares.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, do you not think he is going into rather too much detail about this?

DR. MARX: Yes.

HERRWERTH: Yes, I will make it shorter.

The man from the trustee association said that the 5,000 marks were released because the innocence of Streicher had been proved in this matter.

DR. MARX: You witnessed the Supreme Party Court session at that time?

HERRWERTH: Yes.

DR. MARX: What did Herr Fink say at that time? Did he not accuse himself again of having made false statements?

HERRWERTH: I was not present when Herr Fink was questioned.

DR. MARX: Very well. Then I would like to ask you, were you present when the incident in Munich occurred at the Künstlerhaus Inn—with the man who accosted Streicher?

HERRWERTH: Yes.

DR. MARX: Can you give us a description of how that incident occurred?

HERRWERTH: Well, Herr Streicher left the inn after dinner. I cannot remember the exact words any more, but I am going to try to describe it as well as possible. Herr Streicher left the inn, and as he went out that man approached Herr Streicher in a—may I say—improper manner. Streicher continued on his way and was silent at first. He asked the people around him, myself also, whether we knew that man. Nobody knew him.

Then Herr Streicher sent his son, Lothar, back into the room again to speak to the man and to ask him what the reason was for such behavior. Lothar Streicher came out and said that the man had behaved in just the same manner again.

DR. MARX: Will you please be more brief? You should only tell us how that incident occurred and what caused you and also Herr Streicher to use violence against the man.

HERRWERTH: You mean his behavior?

DR. MARX: Yes. What happened then?

HERRWERTH: Herr Streicher asked the landlord for a room, and in that room Streicher spoke to the man personally. There again the man made offensive remarks, and then it came to blows, first with Lothar Streicher. Now, as it happened, he was a strong man, and of course all of us helped to get him down.

DR. MARX: All right.

I am through with the questioning of this witness, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the Defense Counsel want to ask any questions? Do any of the Prosecution Counsel wish to cross-examine? Then the witness can retire.

[_The witness left the stand._]

DR. MARX: Then I should like to call the witness Wurzbacher, if he is available. Is he not? I do not know which one of the witnesses is still in the witness room. Is there anyone? Wurzbacher? Hiemer?

MARSHAL (Colonel Charles W. Mays): Frau Streicher is available.

THE PRESIDENT: Is not the witness Wurzbacher here?

MARSHAL: I will see, Sir. He was not here a while ago. He was not called for.

THE PRESIDENT: What other witnesses have you got, Dr. Marx?

DR. MARX: The wife of the defendant could be called as a witness now.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, let her be called then.

MARSHAL: The witness Strobel is available now.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx wants to call Frau Streicher.

DR. MARX: Excuse me, Mr. President. If it is rather difficult to call Frau Streicher, then the witness...

[_The witness Frau Streicher took the stand._]

THE PRESIDENT: Will you give me your full name?

FRAU ADELE STREICHER (Witness): Adele Streicher, born Tappe.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: “I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.”

[_The witness repeated the oath in German._]

You may sit down.

DR. MARX: Your maiden name is Tappe and you were born in Magdeburg?

FRAU STREICHER: Yes.

DR. MARX: Were you a member of the NSDAP or of the Frauenschaft?

FRAU STREICHER: No.

DR. MARX: When did you become Herr Streicher’s secretary and for how long were you in that job?

FRAU STREICHER: On 7 June 1940, I became Julius Streicher’s secretary and I remained in that job until the end of the war.

DR. MARX: And during that period, you were continuously on his farm?

FRAU STREICHER: Yes, I was always with him.

DR. MARX: Were you also in charge of all the correspondence for Herr Streicher?

FRAU STREICHER: Yes.

DR. MARX: What did that correspondence mainly consist of?

FRAU STREICHER: Mainly letters to his sons and to relatives.

DR. MARX: What were Streicher’s activities during that period of 5 years?

FRAU STREICHER: Julius Streicher did mainly physical work; that is, agriculture and gardening, and from time to time he wrote articles for _Der Stürmer_.

DR. MARX: During these 5 years did he leave the farm at all or was he ever absent from the farm for any length of time?

FRAU STREICHER: During the first few years of his stay there Julius Streicher did not leave the farm at all; later, once in a while, he would pay a visit in the neighborhood. His longest absence did not comprise an entire day and never a single night.

DR. MARX: Did you know that it was prohibited for prominent Party members to visit Herr Streicher?

FRAU STREICHER: Yes, there was such a prohibition.

DR. MARX: How did you know that?

FRAU STREICHER: From conversations. Then, too, I myself remember, when Dr. Goebbels visited the farm, that Julius Streicher said to him, “Doctor, you dare to come here? Do you not know that it is prohibited by the Party chiefs to visit me?”

DR. MARX: When did the visits of Dr. Ley and Dr. Goebbels occur?

FRAU STREICHER: Dr. Ley came to the farm on 7 May 1944. The visit of Dr. Goebbels occurred on 4 June 1944.

DR. MARX: Would you please describe the character of these visits and what was the subject of the conversations?

FRAU STREICHER: Both visits were of a rather unofficial character. Dr. Ley wanted mainly to know how Julius Streicher was doing, personally. No political questions were raised. Ley said only, “Streicher, the Führer is waiting for you.”

DR. MARX: And what did Streicher say to that?

FRAU STREICHER: Julius Streicher answered that he had become accustomed to his solitude, that he was happy as a farmer, and that Ley should tell the Führer that he, Streicher, wanted nothing more. At the visit of Dr. Goebbels the subject of the conversation dealt mainly with Julius Streicher’s dismissal from his office as Gauleiter, and Dr. Goebbels was of the opinion that Julius Streicher should return into the circle of old Party members; but he gave him the same answer, “Tell the Führer I wish for nothing.”

DR. MARX: Were you always present during these conversations?

FRAU STREICHER: Yes.

DR. MARX: Was not the Jewish question a subject of these conversations?

FRAU STREICHER: No, they never spoke about the Jewish question.

DR. MARX: Did they not speak about the happenings in the Eastern territories, or in the concentration camps?

FRAU STREICHER: No, that never came up any more.

DR. MARX: Did not Streicher speak to you about the articles he intended to write for _Der Stürmer_, and did he not also speak about what he considered to be the solution of the Jewish problem?

FRAU STREICHER: From all conversations with Julius Streicher I could see with certainty that he never thought of the solution of the Jewish question in terms of violence, but hoped for the emigration of Jews from Europe and their settlement in territories outside Europe.

DR. MARX: Was Herr Streicher in correspondence with leading personalities of the Party or of the State?

FRAU STREICHER: No, neither personally nor by correspondence was there any such connection.

DR. MARX: I will now mention several names, of whom I want you to tell me whether they had any connection with him: Himmler, Heydrich, Bormann, or other leading men of the Police or the SS or the Gestapo.

FRAU STREICHER: No, I know nothing of any of these men. With the exception of one letter from Herr Himmler there was never any mail.

DR. MARX: What was the reason for that letter?

FRAU STREICHER: In that letter Herr Himmler complained about the fact that the French prisoners of war who were employed on our Pleikershof farm were treated too well.

DR. MARX: How was the treatment of the prisoners of war and the foreign civilian workers on the farm?

FRAU STREICHER: On the Pleikershof eight French prisoners of war, one Polish girl, and one Slovene girl were employed. They were all treated very well and very humanely. Each service for which Julius Streicher asked, each piece of work for which he asked personally, was especially rewarded with tobacco, pastry, fruit, or even money. Such cordial relations developed with some of the Frenchmen during the years that they were there that they assured us, with tears in their eyes at their departure, that they would visit Julius Streicher after the war with their families.

DR. MARX: Did Streicher not finally receive credible information about these mass executions in the East?

FRAU STREICHER: I believe he found out about it through Swiss newspapers in 1944. We were never informed about it officially.

DR. MARX: But it is asserted that he already had knowledge before that.

FRAU STREICHER: No.

DR. MARX: You do not know anything about it?

FRAU STREICHER: I only know about the Swiss newspapers.

DR. MARX: Very well. You once brought up the subject, in a conversation, that in Magdeburg, from the 9 to 10 November 1938, you witnessed the demonstration against the Jews and that you were revolted by it. Is that true?

FRAU STREICHER: Yes, I spoke about it and said that I was shocked at this action. Julius Streicher got very excited during that conversation and said, “Such nonsense occurred in Nuremberg also. That is not anti-Semitism; that is just great stupidity.”

DR. MARX: Is it correct that Herr Streicher was hardly interested in the financial affairs of the publishing firm and left these things to the manager?

FRAU STREICHER: Julius Streicher never bothered about financial affairs at all, neither in the house nor in the firm. Again and again the gentlemen of the firm were disappointed when they wanted to report about annual balances or the like and Julius Streicher would tell them, “Do not worry me with your business matters. There are other things besides that are more important than money.”

DR. MARX: How did he take care of the household expenses, then?

FRAU STREICHER: I received 1,000 marks every month from the firm. That provided for the household, presents, and so on.

DR. MARX: Do you know that he is supposed to have acquired shares through illegal pressure against a Jewish banker?

FRAU STREICHER: That is completely out of the question. I consider it quite impossible that Julius Streicher acquired shares that way. I believe that he does not even know what a share looks like.

DR. MARX: Did he not tell you anything about it?

FRAU STREICHER: I only heard that he never received shares.

DR. MARX: How did it come about that you and the defendant were married as late as April 1945?

Did you understand the question?

FRAU STREICHER: Yes. Julius Streicher wanted to take part in the fighting in Nuremberg. I wanted to accompany him, so he married me before we left. We wanted to die together.

DR. MARX: Then you left the Pleikershof with him, and where did you go from there?

FRAU STREICHER: First we wanted to go to Nuremberg, and that was refused for fear of difficulties with the authorities. So we drove in the direction of Munich. In Munich we were told to continue in the direction of Passau. From Passau they sent us to Berchtesgaden; from Berchtesgaden they sent us to Kitzbühel.

DR. MARX: How did it happen that the original intention to die together was not followed up? What caused him to change his mind?

FRAU STREICHER: The cause for that was a conversation with three young soldiers.

DR. MARX: And what was that? I will be through right away, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not think you should go into that, Dr. Marx.

DR. MARX: Well, then. I will forego the question. Only one more question: Is it correct that Streicher gave the managers of his publishing firm a written power of attorney which meant that they could dispose of the money as they saw fit?

FRAU STREICHER: Yes, Julius Streicher gave the power of attorney to whoever happened to be the manager of the firm, and thereby gave him his full confidence without any restrictions.

DR. MARX: Mr. President, I have no more questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants’ counsel want to ask any questions?

Does the Prosecution wish to ask any questions?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire, and the Court will adjourn until 0930 tomorrow morning.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 30 April 1946 at 0930 hours._]

ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTEENTH DAY Tuesday, 30 April 1946

_Morning Session_

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, were you going to deal with these questions?

MR. DODD: Yes, Mr. President, I am prepared to do so. Shall I proceed to take up those documents about which we have some difficulty?

THE PRESIDENT: If you will, yes.

MR. DODD: Altogether, there are some 118 documents submitted on behalf of the Defendant Von Schirach. As a result of our conversations we have agreed on all but—I believe the number is twelve.

The first group, Numbers 30, 31, 45, 68, 73, 101, 109, 124, and 133, are all excerpts from a book entitled, _Look, the Heart of Europe_, written by a man named Stanley McClatchie. They are excerpts referring to the Hitler Youth organization, and we do object to them on the ground that they are all irrelevant and immaterial here. They describe Hitler Youth meetings at homes and Hitler health programs and Hitler athletic competitions and Hitler Youth Land Service and that sort of thing. There are general descriptions by Mr. McClatchie of some activities of the Hitler Youth organization. They are all, I say, from that same book—none of them written by the defendant himself. They were published in 1937.

Then, Document Number 118 (a) is a letter. It is unsigned, except that it is typewritten. It is by Colin Ross and his wife and it appears to be a suicide note setting forth the reasons why Ross and his wife intended to commit suicide. We have been unable to determine its probative value and do not see any probative value in it, insofar as the issues concerning this defendant are concerned. He apparently was acquainted with the Defendant Von Schirach and that is the claim, I assume, of counsel for Von Schirach, that it sheds some light of some kind on Von Schirach’s attitude. But it is not clear to us.

The third document is Number 121. This is a quotation from the United States Army newspaper, _The Stars and Stripes_, issue of the 21st of February 1946. It is about the training of young people in Yugoslavia at the present time. With respect to this we also say that we believe it to be immaterial here and not relevant and not bearing on the issues concerning this defendant as charged in the Indictment.

Those three—the first group and the two, 118 and 121, are the only documents concerning which we have any controversy.

THE PRESIDENT: Eleven.

MR. DODD: I am sorry. I said twelve.

DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for Defendant Von Schirach): Mr. President, the first group of documents to which the Prosecution has objected are from a book by an American, McClatchie.

This American, as he himself writes in the book, is of Scottish descent, and in the year 1936—that was the year of the Olympic Games—visited Germany; he was able to see for himself the conditions in Germany and the development of the German people during the first years of the Hitler regime, and here he describes the impressions he received.

Normally, I would not attach any special value to this book, if it were not for the fact that the preface shows that the book was written on suggestion of the Defendant Baldur von Schirach.

The defendant, as he will explain in the course of his own examination, began very early to build up a pleasant and friendly relationship especially with the United States, and this book by McClatchie is one of the many means which the Defendant Von Schirach used for that purpose. The author himself admits in the preface of his book that he obtained a large part of the material for the book from the Defendant Von Schirach. This fact lends to the book an importance, with respect to its relevancy for the purposes of this Trial in the defense of Von Schirach, entirely different from what it would have been had it been written quite independently of Von Schirach. That is, we have to evaluate the statements and descriptions in this book more or less as though they were statements of the Defendant Von Schirach himself. This is the main reason why I have submitted the book with the request that I be permitted to quote in evidence some short passages, particularly those referring to the Youth Leadership. The rest of the book, which is also interesting but has no direct connection with the Youth Leadership of the Defendant Von Schirach, have not mentioned; I refer only to a few short extracts which shed light exclusively on the activity and the aims of the Defendant Von Schirach; and, besides, they are intended to show you, Gentlemen, what impression even a foreigner gained of this activity, although naturally he had come to Germany with a certain prejudice which had to be overcome by his personal impressions.

That, Mr. President, is what I wanted to say to the first group, which the prosecutor listed individually from Numbers 30 to 133.

The second group consists of Number 118(a) of the Document Book Schirach, and that is a letter of farewell which the explorer, Dr. Colin Ross, left behind.

If the prosecutor objects that the letter bears no signature, the fact, in my opinion, is not particularly important. What we have submitted is the original copy of that last letter, and this original copy was found among the papers of Dr. Colin Ross.

Now, the Prosecution ask: What has that farewell letter by Dr. Colin Ross to do with the charges against Schirach? I ask the Tribunal to recall that the name of Dr. Colin Ross has been mentioned here repeatedly. He is the explorer—I believe an American by birth but I am not certain at the moment. He is the man who for many years was not only a close friend of Schirach’s but one whom the Defendant Von Schirach used again and again in order to prevent the outbreak of a war with the United States, and later, to terminate the war and to bring about peace with the United States. When the evidence is presented, these points will be clarified in detail, I believe. I now submit the last letter of Dr. Colin Ross...

THE PRESIDENT: When was it dated?

DR. SAUTER: One moment please. The date is 30 April 1945. I consider the letter—it is only one page long—important for the reason that in it a man, at a moment before he committed suicide with his wife because he was desperate about the future of Germany, at this moment—in the face of death, he again confirmed the fact that he, together with the Defendant Von Schirach, continuously endeavored to maintain peace particularly with the United States. I believe, Gentlemen, that such a man...

THE PRESIDENT: Where was he at the time when, as I understand you to say, he committed suicide?

DR. SAUTER: The Defendant Von Schirach...

THE PRESIDENT: No, no, the man who wrote the letter.

DR. SAUTER: One moment, please. The Defendant Von Schirach had a small house in Upper Bavaria in Urfeld on the Walchensee, and in that house Colin Ross lived at the time with his wife, and it was here in Schirach’s house that he committed suicide.

The letter is only one page, and it would not cause any considerable delay in the proceedings if it were read.

Then, Gentlemen, the third group to which the Prosecution objects again consists of one number only—a comparatively short article from _The Stars and Stripes_, Number 121. That edition of which I shall submit the original in evidence is of 21 February 1946, that is, of this year. It explains in detail how the education of youth in Yugoslavia has now been reorganized by Marshal Tito, and the Defendant Von Schirach attaches particular value to this document because it proves that in Yugoslavia a definitely military education of youth has been decided upon this very year. The Defendant Von Schirach therefore desires to make a comparison between the kind of education which he promoted and the Yugoslav education of youth which has been adopted only this year, and which goes very much further than the program of the Defendant Von Schirach did at any time.

That is all.

MR. DODD: Mr. President, may I make just one or two short observations? I realize that ordinarily the Tribunal does not want to hear from counsel twice, but there are two matters I feel I should clear up.

First of all, this book, _Look, the Heart of Europe_, which may have been written by this man McClatchie, who, counsel says, is an American of Scotch ancestry—I think it is important that the Tribunal know that it was published in Germany. I am sure that counsel did not mean to imply that it was an American publication because, other than having been written by this man, it was published over here after he attended the Olympic Games in 1936.

THE PRESIDENT: And in the German language, I suppose?

MR. DODD: Yes, and the German title was _Sieh: Das Herz Europas_. Then with respect to the Colin Ross note. I think it is important to observe that no one knows whether Ross committed suicide or not—at least insofar as the Allied countries are concerned. His body has never been found and only this note which counsel says was found among his effects.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, may I make another remark concerning the first group? This book by McClatchie was published by a German publisher. The efforts of the Defendant Von Schirach made the publication possible. That again speaks for the fact that Von Schirach in furthering the publication had a certain purpose in view. That purpose was to bring about enlightenment between America and Germany and to smooth over the difficulties which he was afraid could one day lead to war. The book by McClatchie appeared not only in German, but also in the English language, and it was sold in large numbers in England and in the United States. Of course, it also appeared in German and the German language edition was sold in Germany.

That, I believe, is all I wish to say at this point.

THE PRESIDENT: Would you tell the Tribunal what these other documents are that Mr. Dodd has not objected to? Because we understand that there are 160 documents which he has not objected to. What are they all about, and how long are they?

DR. SAUTER: They are short. I have submitted only one Document Book. That is, I have limited myself to the absolute necessities, Gentlemen.

THE PRESIDENT: Of how many pages?

DR. SAUTER: Altogether, 134 pages. Of course, some cover only one-half or one-third of a page, since the majority are relatively short quotations. It was necessary for me to submit these excerpts, because I can produce evidence of the activities of the Defendant Von Schirach as Reich Youth Leader only by showing the Tribunal just what the Defendant Von Schirach told the youth of the German nation, what his teachings were, what his directives to his subordinate leaders were. And in order to do so, I must submit, as I believe the Prosecution realizes, a short report covering the entire period during which Von Schirach was Reich Youth Leader, so as to show that the opinions and theories of the Defendant Von Schirach during the last year of his activity as Reich Youth Leader were exactly the same as those during his first year. He is one of the few men within the Party who did not, in the course of the years, allow themselves to become violent, he did not go to extremes as did most of the others; and that is what I want to show by these comparatively short excerpts.

I believe that is all at the moment.

THE PRESIDENT: Then you have the supplementary applications for witnesses, have you not?

DR. SAUTER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: You’d better deal with those, had you not?

DR. SAUTER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, one of them, I understand, is a person who made an affidavit which has been used by the Prosecution.

DR. SAUTER: I believe that is the witness Uiberreither.

THE PRESIDENT: No, I think it is the other one, is it not? Who are the two?

DR. SAUTER: One is, I believe...

THE PRESIDENT: Marsalek.

DR. SAUTER: No, not Marsalek, but Uiberreither. Marsalek, Mr. President,...

THE PRESIDENT: I have your application before me for Marsalek. You do not want Marsalek?

DR. SAUTER: No, that must be an error.

THE PRESIDENT: Dated the 15th of April 1946. Anyhow, you do not want him?

DR. SAUTER: No.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, then you only want one, do you?

DR. SAUTER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: And that is Uiberreither?

DR. SAUTER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Has the Prosecution any objection to him?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: No, we have not, Your Honor. That affidavit I believe, was introduced by us in connection with the Kaltenbrunner case, an affidavit by Uiberreither.

THE PRESIDENT: You have no objection?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: No objection.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you, Dr. Sauter. We will consider your application in respect of documents and the witness. We will consider your application, and we will now proceed with the case of Streicher.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please the Tribunal, I should like to make a motion to the case of Streicher. I desire to move that Streicher’s testimony found on Pages 8495, and 8496 of April 26th be expunged from the Record, and on Page 8549 of yesterday’s testimony.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, do you wish to say anything about that?

DR. MARX: Excuse me, Mr. President. Unfortunately, I did not completely understand the motions made by the Chief Prosecutor, Mr. Justice Jackson, because at that moment I was busy with something else. As far as I understood, he dealt with the deletion.

THE PRESIDENT: I can tell you what the motion was. The motion was that passages on Pages 8494, 8495, and 8496, and on Page 8549 be expunged from the record.

DR. MARX: I understand. I would like to say, from the point of view of the Defense, that I agree that these passages be expunged from the record, because I am of the opinion that they are in no way relevant for the defense of the defendant.

THE PRESIDENT: The passages to which Mr. Justice Jackson has drawn our attention are, in the opinion of the Tribunal, highly improper statements made by the Defendant Streicher. They are, in the opinion of the Tribunal, entirely irrelevant, and they have been admitted by counsel for the Defendant Streicher to be entirely irrelevant, and they will, therefore, be expunged from the record.

And now, Dr. Marx.

DR. MARX: May I now, with the permission of the Tribunal, continue with the examination of witnesses? I now call the witness Friedrich Strobel to the stand.

[_The witness Strobel took the stand._]

THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name.

FRIEDRICH STROBEL (Witness): Friedrich Strobel.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.

[_The witness repeated the oath in German._]

You may sit down.

DR. MARX: Witness, on 3 December 1938 were you at a meeting of the Jurists’ association (Rechtswahrerbund) in Nuremberg?

STROBEL: Yes.

DR. MARX: During that meeting the Defendant Streicher is supposed to have spoken; is that correct?

STROBEL: Yes.

DR. MARX: Would you please tell us what the Defendant Streicher stated on that occasion concerning the demonstrations of 9 November 1938?

STROBEL: He said, “I should not have carried out this action in this way. In such a manner it is impossible to fight a power like World Jewry.” Then he added, “What has been done cannot be undone,” and some more phrases of that kind.

DR. MARX: Is it correct that at that time you were surprised that Streicher in public objected against that action, which had been ordered by the highest authorities?

STROBEL: Yes. Streicher frequently spoke against measures and directives of the Government when he was of a different opinion, as on this occasion. I had the impression that apparently he had been passed over; for in his speech there was a certain malicious undertone to the effect that the matter was having unfavorable aftereffects. I wondered at the time whether Streicher really had a lucid interval and realized how harmful that anti-Jewish action was, or whether merely his vanity was wounded, or whether he felt that a too quick and radical an extermination of the Jews would put an end also to his own importance.

DR. MARX: Witness, these are opinions which you are stating and not facts; I did not ask you about that.

STROBEL: Well, that was my impression.

DR. MARX: All right, I ask you now: On 9 and 10 November 1938 were you present in Nuremberg?

STROBEL: Yes, I believe so. I do not remember exactly, but I believe it was on the night of 8 to 9 November 1938 that that action was carried out. It was on 7 November that Herr Vom Rath was shot, and on the 8th he died, and the night after these things occurred.

THE PRESIDENT: We needn’t argue about whether it was the 8th or the 9th. It doesn’t matter, does it?

DR. MARX: The question which I want to put to you now is: After that night during which the demonstrations against the Jewish population took place, what observations did you make on the following morning and later, about the attitude of the population in Nuremberg toward these demonstrations?

STROBEL: I was informed about that action by the personnel in my office. Thereupon I walked into the city and looked around in the streets. People were standing in front of the damaged stores. I had the impression that the vast majority of the population was benumbed and speechless. People shook their heads, looked at each other, muttered something, and then walked away. But, generally, I had the impression that people could not speak aloud, and later I heard that those who had objected to these things were treated rather badly, when they were overheard by informers.

DR. MARX: But the general impression was, was it not, that the population definitely disapproved of that action, and that general indignation was recognizable though not loudly expressed?

STROBEL: Yes. The Russian radio at the time hit the nail on the head by saying, “Let it be said to the credit of the German people that they had no part in the events and that they were sleeping.”

In fact most people heard of the events of the night only on the following morning.

THE PRESIDENT: What has this got to do with the Defendant Streicher?

DR. MARX: Well, the Defendant Streicher has been accused of openly approving this action in his speech on 10 November. The Defendant Streicher also maintains in his defense that it was an action ordered by the top authorities and not a spontaneous demonstration of the people.

THE PRESIDENT: The fact that a number of people in Nuremberg, or even the whole of the people of Nuremberg, disapproved of it wouldn’t show that Streicher disapproved of it.

DR. MARX: Yes, but he maintains that there could have been no question of an incitement, since the action had been ordered and directed from the top, whereas, in the case of an incitement, the action would have been started by the people themselves. That was his conclusion.

STROBEL: May I state my opinion about that? The action was definitely not started by the people themselves, because even the majority of the SA men who took part in it did so against their will. It was an order from above; it was an organized affair. The assertion of Dr. Goebbels that the German people had risen spontaneously was an intentional incrimination of the German people.

DR. MARX: I have no more questions to ask of this witness, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Do any other of the defendants’ counsel wish to ask him any questions?

[_There was no response._]

Does the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?

[_There was no response._]

Then the witness can retire.

DR. MARX: With the permission of the Tribunal, I now call the witness Ernst Hiemer.

MARSHAL: There is no witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Is he not there?

MARSHAL: We have no witness there.

THE PRESIDENT: He says, Dr. Marx, that he is not there, and that there are no witnesses there.

DR. MARX: Excuse me, Mr. President. The witness Hiemer is in the prison here, and I talked to him personally.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, did you inform the prison authorities yesterday that you were going to call him?

DR. MARX: I spoke to the Marshal on Monday and asked that Hiemer be brought up on Tuesday, as far as I can recall. There must be a misunderstanding.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, have you got any other witnesses besides Hiemer?

DR. MARX: Yes, the witness Wurzbacher.

THE PRESIDENT: Where is he? Where is Wurzbacher?

DR. MARX: Wurzbacher is also here in prison.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, while he is being brought, can you take up the time in dealing with your documents?

DR. MARX: Yes. We can do that.

MARSHAL: They will be here in about 5 minutes.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Go on, Dr. Marx.

DR. MARX: Mr. President, before coming to the question of the documents, I should like to point out the following: During the session yesterday afternoon the Prosecution submitted several documents which were new to me, and I have not yet had an opportunity of stating my position with regard to them. Nor have I yet had a chance of speaking to the Defendant Streicher about them. From the point of view of the Defense, I consider it necessary to explain my position with regard to these very important documents; and I believe that I must now examine all the articles of _Der Stürmer_ to see whether Streicher used in some way or other the various pieces of information from the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_; for his defense is, “I did not believe what I read there.” If he did not use these items of information in any of his articles, then his answer is, to a certain extent, corroborated. Therefore I have to review the matter...

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. In one particular article it was demonstrated yesterday in cross-examination, as I understood it, that he had used an article from the Jewish paper.

DR. MARX: Yes. I know that article. It is one of 4 November 1943.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Marx, what exactly are you applying for now? What is your motion?

DR. MARX: My motion is that the Tribunal permit me to supplement my document book so as to be able to state my position with regard to yesterday’s presentation of documents by the Prosecution by submitting counter documents of my own. My presentation of documents would be incomplete if I had no chance of replying to these new documents submitted by the Prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Marx; the Tribunal grants your motion provided you make it in the ordinary way, in writing, referring to any passages which you contend throw light on the passages which have been put in by the Prosecution.

DR. MARX: Yes. May I now begin to discuss the individual documents? Document Number Streicher-1 shows that the newspaper _Der Stürmer_, according to the decision of the Führer, was not an official Party organ and was not even entitled to carry the state insignia while all other press organs displayed the insignia conspicuously. That is evidence that the paper _Der Stürmer_ was a private publication of the Defendant Streicher.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, you are going to offer these documents in evidence and give them exhibit numbers, are you not?

DR. MARX: I consider these documents as submitted; I have discussed the subject with the Prosecution, and the Prosecution had no objections.

THE PRESIDENT: You see, there is a written transcript being taken down, and unless you offer each document in evidence and say that will be exhibit number so-and-so, it does not get into the transcript. If you like you can do it in a group and say, “I offer in evidence such and such documents as Exhibits 1 to 100,” or whatever number you wish.

DR. MARX: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: The book I have before me does contain certain exhibit numbers; for instance, Page 1 to 4 appears to be Exhibit Number Streicher-1 and Page 5 is Exhibit Number Streicher-5; Page 6 is Exhibit Number Streicher-6; Page 7 is Exhibit Number Streicher-7.

DR. MARX: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: I am told that Page 4 is Exhibit Number Streicher-1; is it?

DR. MARX: The pagination made here is completely different from the one I made and consequently it is now arranged altogether differently.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, let us get on. You only have to tell us what documents you are offering in evidence and under what exhibit numbers. Dr. Marx, you can do it later if you want to.

DR. MARX: I further submit Exhibit Number Streicher-5, an excerpt from an editorial of _Der Stürmer_ of July 1938. Number 28. This article, which was not written by the Defendant Streicher but by Karl Holz, is worded in very sharp language and says that vengeance will break loose one day and all Jewry will be exterminated. But the salient point here—the article seems to have been provoked by a letter which was sent from Nuremberg to New York, and which stated that Germany in the case of war, would be destroyed from the air. And so this article also falls under the claim which the defendant made yesterday, namely that his sharp language was always caused by some preceding action from another side. That is Document Number Streicher-5 and I ask permission to submit it as an exhibit under that number.

Then I submit as Document Number Streicher-6, an excerpt from Number 40 of _Der Stürmer_ of October 1938. I think I can dispense with comment on it because my argument can be seen from the document itself; or is it necessary to speak about it?

THE PRESIDENT: No, you need not speak about them; just put them in.

DR. MARX: I submit as Document Number Streicher-7, an excerpt from the _Völkischer Beobachter_ of 25 February 1942, in answer to Document M-31 of the trial brief against the defendant.

Then I submit Document Number Streicher-8, an excerpt from the _Völkischer Beobachter_ of 8 February 1939, Page 2.

Then as Document Number Streicher-9, an excerpt from the political testament of Adolf Hitler, dated 29 April 1945.

As Document Number Streicher-10, an excerpt from _Der Stürmer_, February 1935, Number 8, Page 4.

As Document Number Streicher-11, an excerpt from _Der Stürmer_ of September 1935, Number 38.

I am giving the next page the Document Number Streicher-12. That is an excerpt from _Der Stürmer_, of September 1935, Number 38, Page 9.

Document Number Streicher-13 is an excerpt from _Der Stürmer_, of January 1938. Number 1.

Document Number Streicher-14, an excerpt from _Der Stürmer_ of May 1938, Number 20.

As Document Number Streicher-15, an excerpt from _Der Stürmer_ of 5 November 1943, Number 45.

As Document Number Streicher-16, of the Defense, a document submitted by the Prosecution under number 759-PS.

As Document Number Streicher-17, speeches made by Himmler in April 1943, on 4 October 1943, and 23 September 1943 at Posen and Kharkov.

As Document Number Streicher-18, a photostat of the special issue of _Der Stürmer_ of May 1939, Number 20.

I ask to have these documents admitted. I have limited myself to the utmost.

THE PRESIDENT: That is all, is it?

DR. MARX: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Are the witnesses ready yet? Perhaps we might as well adjourn for 10 minutes now.

[_A recess was taken._]

[_The witness Ernst Hiemer took the stand._]

THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name.

ERNST HIEMER (Witness): Ernst Hiemer.

DR. MARX: May I just interrupt for a minute, Mr. President. First of all I would like to state that I am by no means holding the Marshal responsible for the mistake. The matter was as follows: The mistake in requesting the witness...

THE PRESIDENT: It is quite all right, Dr. Marx.

DR. MARX: I consider it my duty to state here that the Marshal is not responsible for the mistake about the bringing in of the witness. One of my assistants spoke yesterday with a gentleman...

THE PRESIDENT: We quite understand, Dr. Marx.

DR. MARX: Then, Mr. President, I should like to submit Documents Number Streicher 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 up to 18. I do not know whether it is clear now. The numbers are 1 and 5, and from 6 through 18. Lacking are 2, 3, and 4, which were dropped. All other exhibit numbers are contained therein, Numbers 1 and from 5 through 18.

THE PRESIDENT: You include 19, don’t you?

DR. MARX: No, Numbers 19 and 20 are not necessary.

THE PRESIDENT: No, I beg your pardon. I think I must have been wrong. I have taken down 19, but you haven’t got 19, have you?

DR. MARX: Number 18 is my last one, Your Honor, and I ask to have that included in the record.

THE PRESIDENT: And now you are going to go on with the witnesses?

DR. MARX: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name.

ERNST HIEMER: Ernst Hiemer.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.

[_The witness repeated the oath in German._]

You may sit down.

DR. MARX: Since when have you known Herr Streicher, how did you get into contact with him, and what position did you have on _Der Stürmer_?

HIEMER: At the end of 1934 I was introduced to the then Gauleiter Julius Streicher in the Deutscher Hof in Nuremberg. Streicher gave me the assignment of working for his public health journal, _Die Deutsche Volksgesundheit_. In 1935 I also wrote reports for _Der Stürmer_. Streicher then had me transferred to the editorial staff of _Der Stürmer_.

Eventually, under Streicher’s direction and the direction of other staff members of _Der Stürmer_, I did editorial work as a co-editor. The responsible editor of _Der Stürmer_ was Karl Holz, Streicher’s deputy, but the leading spirit of the paper was Streicher himself. In the year 1938 instructions came from Berlin to the effect that Holz was permitted to contribute to _Der Stürmer_, but in his capacity as state official—he was the Deputy Gauleiter—he was no longer to be mentioned in the editions of _Der Stürmer_. Thereupon, on instruction from Streicher, my name was entered in _Der Stürmer_ as responsible editor. The overall direction of the paper and all authority connected therewith remained in Streicher’s hands, and Streicher retained this position until the collapse.

DR. MARX: What was the main idea of _Der Stürmer’s_ policy? What was the Leitmotiv?

HIEMER: Streicher wanted by means of _Der Stürmer_, in the simplest and most popular language, to convey to every man and every woman of the German nation knowledge about the Jews. Streicher wanted the entire German people to realize that the Jew was a stranger among them.

DR. MARX: Herr Hiemer, I do not want to know that. I want you to tell me whether Herr Streicher, let us say, wished to advocate emigration or whether he followed a different train of thought. Long expositions on the Jewish problem are not required.

HIEMER: Streicher was of the opinion that in Germany the Jewish question should be solved by emigration. He repeatedly criticized the leadership of the Reich because the emigration of Jews was not being carried through in the manner desired by Streicher. When the war came, Streicher asserted that the Jewish problem would no longer have had any significance for a Germany at war if in accordance with his idea it had been solved by complete emigration of the Jews during the preceding time of peace.

DR. MARX: Is it correct that the Palestine and Madagascar problem was discussed in the journal?

HIEMER: Yes. Streicher stated his opinion in word as well as in writing, that Palestine and Madagascar would be suitable localities for absorbing the Jews living in Germany. However, he did not follow up this thought, since not Germany but only England and France could dispose of Palestine and Madagascar.

DR. MARX: What do you think about the influence exerted by Streicher and _Der Stürmer_ since 1933? Is it not true that since 1933 its influence among the German people was much in decline?

HIEMER: Yes, that is correct. In many circles it was known that the influence of Streicher and of his paper on the movement did decrease. After 1933 Streicher had many conflicts with other Party leaders, and he made many enemies. Particularly from the year 1937, Streicher was pushed more and more into the background. Within the Party the Institute for the Study of the Jewish Problem, under the leadership of Rosenberg, dealt with the theory of the Jewish problem, and actual authority over the Jews belonged, as is well known, exclusively to Himmler.

When finally in the year 1940 Streicher was relieved of his post as Gauleiter, he was completely isolated. From then on he lived on his farm and worked there as a farmer; he wrote articles only for _Der Stürmer_.

DR. MARX: What was the circulation of _Der Stürmer_ from 1933? Can you give us figures? Of course, only after the date when you joined the paper.

HIEMER: This question of the circulation could, of course, be answered best by the publication manager, who was concerned with it. However, I remember approximate figures. _Der Stürmer_ was in 1933 a very small paper; but by the year 1935 its circulation increased to about 800,000. After that, however, there was a sharp decline.

Of course, during the war _Der Stürmer_ had a smaller circulation. I cannot give you any exact figures and during the last months the circulation of the paper was, of course, extremely small. On the average, I might say that _Der Stürmer_ had a circulation of perhaps half a million. Of course, there were special issues which had a much larger circulation.

As I said, only the publisher could authenticate these figures.

DR. MARX: What can be the reason for the increase in the year 1935?

HIEMER: It is very difficult for me to answer that question.

DR. MARX: Wasn’t it because Party authorities—because subscriptions were made compulsory in factories and other places?

HIEMER: You are putting questions to me which really only a publisher can answer. I myself cannot answer the question with assurance, and therefore must remain silent; my testimony would not be reliable.

DR. MARX: Of course, if you don’t know, you are free to say, “My knowledge on this point is not sufficient.” Did Herr Streicher know of the happenings in the East, especially in the concentration camps, and what did he personally tell you about these things?

HIEMER: Streicher himself never told me that he knew about the happenings in the concentration camps. On the contrary, Streicher said he learned of these things only in 1944 through the Swiss press. Streicher received the Swiss newspapers regularly, in particular the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_ of Switzerland, and in 1944 this journal published rather detailed descriptions about what was going on in the concentration camps.

Streicher at first refused to credit these reports in the Swiss press and called them premeditated lies. He declared that these reports were being printed merely for the purpose of undermining the prestige of the German people abroad. It is true Streicher soon changed his opinion. He began to doubt that his opinion was right and finally he believed that the occurrences in concentration camps, as pictured in the Swiss press, did after all correspond to the facts. Streicher said that Himmler was the only man who could have authorized such crimes.

DR. MARX: You said that Streicher soon changed his opinion. What does that mean?

HIEMER: In the beginning he had decidedly said that these reports could not be true. Then he became uncertain and said that perhaps they might be true. I had the impression that either the detailed manner of the reports in the Swiss press had convinced Streicher that these things had actually occurred or that Streicher, from one source or another, either through personal contact or through letters, had received knowledge that these happenings were actually taking place in the concentration camps. To that I ascribe his change of view.

DR. MARX: And when was that, approximately?

HIEMER: I cannot give you the exact date, but I believe it was in the middle of 1944.

DR. MARX: What attitude did he take when he was finally convinced? Did he express satisfaction at the fact that so many people had been killed?

HIEMER: No. Streicher definitely deprecated what was done in the concentration camps. It did happen that Streicher, in anger—if he had been especially upset by political events—often or at times, asserted that Jews, as an enemy of the German people, should be exterminated. However, Streicher talked in that way only in the first phase of excitement. When he was calmed, he always opposed the extermination of the Jews.

DR. MARX: But repeatedly in articles of _Der Stürmer_ there is talk of the extermination of the Jews?

HIEMER: Yes. It is a fact that in reports of _Der Stürmer_ the extermination of Jewry is spoken about. However, on the other hand, Streicher again and again opposed the murder of the Jews, and I am quite convinced that Streicher and _Der Stürmer_ had nothing whatever to do with the happenings in concentration camps. I do not believe it.

For it is known now that these crimes in the concentration camps were committed on the instructions of individual leading men; that is, on official orders, and it is my firm conviction that neither Streicher nor _Der Stürmer_ had anything to do with them.

DR. MARX: How were the articles which you wrote prepared? Did you receive directives for the articles from Streicher and then merely edit them, or were you the real author?

HIEMER: Streicher was the founder and the publisher of _Der Stürmer_. But he was in fact also the chief editor, and all his colleagues, no matter whether it was his deputy, Holz, or others—all of them had to submit their articles to Streicher before they were printed. Streicher then ordered changes if the need arose; he also gave the editors assignments for articles, that is, he told them with what arguments these articles were to be drawn up; and Streicher knew of all the articles which appeared in _Der Stürmer_. In fact, he was the responsible head, the editor of _Der Stürmer_. All others were his assistants. He himself was, as he often said with pride, one and the same with _Der Stürmer_. “Streicher and _Der Stürmer_ are one and the same.” That was his maxim.

DR. MARX: That, of course, he admits; he says that he assumes the responsibility.

What can you tell us about the so-called pornographic library?

HIEMER: _Der Stürmer_ was in possession of a large archive. This archive consisted of many thousands of German and foreign-language books, documents, edicts, and so forth. These books were either put at the disposal of the _Stürmer_ archive by friends of _Der Stürmer_, or they came from Jewish apartments. The police put books which were found in Jewish houses at the disposal of Rosenberg’s Institute for the Study of the Jewish problem for research purposes. Whatever remained in the Jewish dwellings in Nuremberg was turned over to the _Stürmer_ archive. Among these books there were also numerous which dealt with sexual knowledge, books by Magnus Hirschfeld, Bloch, and some which were simply pornographic. These, then, consisted both of books which had been sent in by friends of the _Stürmer_, and books which had been found in Jewish dwellings.

These books were kept in a special section of the _Stürmer_ archive under lock and key, and the public did not have access to them. This literature was no personal pornographic library of Streicher, but formed a part of _Der Stürmer’s_ archive. Streicher never read these books. They were to be reviewed after the war in the course of the reconstruction. All those which were not of direct Jewish origin were to be removed, but as I said, Streicher did not read these books.

DR. MARX: Where were these books kept? Were they in the publishing house, or how is it that a part...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, there is no charge here with respect to this particular sort of books.

DR. MARX: This is my last question. I just wanted to clarify this matter, since it played an important part in the public mind. I have no further questions to the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Then, are there any questions from the other Defense Counsel?

DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): I have one question only.

[_Turning to the witness._] Did Rosenberg have any connections with the editorial staff of _Der Stürmer_?

HIEMER: To my knowledge, his connections were almost non-existent. I knew personally only Dr. Ballensiefen, who worked with Rosenberg. I also knew Dr. Pohl personally, but no relations existed between the _Der Stürmer_ and the Institute for the Study of the Jewish Problem for the purposes of co-operation.

DR. THOMA: Did Ballensiefen and Pohl have connections with _Der Stürmer_?

HIEMER: Pohl had personal connections with me. He was a student of Hebrew and had made translations of the Talmud; he had also published the _Talmudgeist_. Through that I got to know him. Ballensiefen also had no personal connection with _Der Stürmer_.

DR. THOMA: Does this mean that Pohl did have personal connections...

HIEMER: Only with me, not with _Der Stürmer_.

DR. THOMA: ...or was he sent by Rosenberg in this matter?

HIEMER: No.

DR. THOMA: I have no further questions, Your Honor.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I have only one matter to ask you about. Do I understand you to say that by the middle of 1944 Streicher had become convinced that the reports in the Swiss newspaper, _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_, were true?

HIEMER: I did not understand you. Will you please repeat the question?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Do I understand you to say that by the middle of 1944 Streicher had become convinced of the truth of the reports he was reading in the Swiss newspaper about concentration camps?

HIEMER: Yes, I had the impression that Streicher in the middle of 1944...

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I only wanted an answer “yes” or “no.” That is quite sufficient.

Let me just read to you three lines of an article which was published in _Der Stürmer_ on the 14th of September 1944.

HIEMER: Yes.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES:

“Bolshevism cannot be vanquished; it must be destroyed. The same is true of Judaism; it cannot be vanquished, disarmed, or rendered powerless; it must be exterminated.”

That is Page 2.

Then the word that you use or is cited for exterminated is ausgerottet, which I understand means completely wiped out. Why was that article appearing in _Der Stürmer_ in September 1944, when it was known by the owner of _Der Stürmer_ what was going on in concentration camps in the East? What was the purpose of that article?

HIEMER: I personally did not write this article. I believe that Streicher wrote it, therefore I myself am not able to judge the intention of the article. But I do maintain that Streicher made statements opposing the murders in the concentration camps, and that he did not want the murder of Jewry.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well, I will leave that.

My Lord, in the interest of time I do not propose to cross-examine this witness any further. Perhaps I might be allowed to draw the Tribunal’s attention to those articles contained in your bundle, which are articles actually written by this witness. There are about seven of them. Page 3A, 35A, 38A, 40A, 49A, 50A and 51A, that is, covering a period from January 1939 up to August 1944.

And, My Lord, the other matter that I would draw the Tribunal’s attention to was that this witness was the author of the disgusting children’s book which I presented to the Tribunal in putting the individual case against Streicher.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross-examination?

[_There was no response._]

Dr. Marx, do you wish to re-examine? You heard what counsel said about the various articles written by this witness. You wish to re-examine or not? Have you any questions you wish to ask the witness?

DR. MARX: Yes, please.

Herr Hiemer, perhaps you did not quite understand the question a moment ago. Please tell us again just when Herr Streicher received knowledge, and when he told you that he was convinced of or believed in these mass murders.

HIEMER: It is my opinion and conviction that it was in the middle of 1944.

DR. MARX: But there had been statements to that effect in the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_ for a number of years prior to that date.

HIEMER: Yes; at that time Streicher did not believe these things. His change of view took place only in the year 1944 and I remember it was not before the middle of the year.

DR. MARX: I have no further questions to the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.

[_The witness left the stand._]

DR. MARX: With the permission of the Tribunal I would like to call the witness Philipp Wurzbacher.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

[_The witness Wurzbacher took the stand._]

THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?

PHILIPP WURZBACHER (Witness): Philipp Wurzbacher.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.

[_The witness repeated the oath in German._]

You may sit down.

DR. MARX: Witness, you were an SA Leader in Nuremberg?

WURZBACHER: Yes.

DR. MARX: From when?

WURZBACHER: From 1928.

DR. MARX: And what position did you have?

WURZBACHER: At that time I was an SA Standartenführer and had risen from the lowest ranks.

DR. MARX: Witness, please speak more slowly and pause as frequently as possible, as your testimony has to be interpreted into several languages.

How long have you known the Defendant Streicher?

WURZBACHER: I have known him from meetings, since 1923; personally, from the time of my activity as an SA Leader in the year 1928.

DR. MARX: Were you regularly present at the meetings at which Streicher spoke?

WURZBACHER: I cannot say that I was present regularly, but I attended very frequently.

DR. MARX: Did Streicher in his speeches advocate the use of violence against the Jewish population, or did he predict it?

WURZBACHER: At no meeting did I hear suggestions that violence should be used against the Jewish population. Nor did I ever hear Streicher suggest or announce that he had any such intentions in mind.

DR. MARX: Did an act of violence against the Jewish population, originating from and carried out by the people themselves, take place in Nuremberg or the Gau Franconia at any time in the period from 1920 to 1933?

WURZBACHER: No, I cannot remember any incident of that type.

DR. MARX: Did the SA undertake any such action or was anything like that ordered?

WURZBACHER: The SA never undertook anything like that at that time. On the contrary, the SA had instructions, unequivocal instructions, to refrain from such acts of violence. Severe punishment would have resulted for anyone who did anything like that, or for an SA Leader who gave such orders. Besides, as I have already emphasized, there was never any suggestion or any order to that effect.

DR. MARX: What do you say to the events on the night of the 9 to 10 November 1938?

WURZBACHER: I was not in Nuremberg during the events from the 9 to 10 November 1938. At that time I was in Bad Ems on account of chronic laryngitis. I can only say what I know from stories which I heard afterwards.

DR. MARX: Did you talk with Obergruppenführer Obernitz?

WURZBACHER: Yes.

DR. MARX: About these events?

WURZBACHER: Yes, I talked with SA Obergruppenführer Von Obernitz in a brief conversation, when I reported my return. We spoke only a few words, since Obergruppenführer Von Obernitz was called away so that in the course of the conversation I could not return to the subject. I remember that Obergruppenführer Von Obernitz declared at the time that as far as he was concerned the matter had been put in order. That was the sense of what he said.

DR. MARX: Was there within the SA a uniform opinion, or were there, even in the circles of the SA, men who disapproved of these incredible occurrences?

WURZBACHER: Opinions were, as far as I could determine upon my return—I believe it was on 23 or 24 November—very much divided. A part of the SA was in favor, the other opposed what had happened, but at all events, the majority in general considered it to be wrong and condemned what had been done.

DR. MARX: Was there an increase, I mean, an increase of brutality in these circles after 1933 on account of the growing numbers of the SA?

WURZBACHER: It goes without saying that after the accession to power, when many doubtful elements joined, the situation was completely different from what it had been before. Up to that time, as a responsible Leader, one knew almost every member individually, but now with the tremendous influx of new men, a general survey of the new situation had first to be made. But I believe I may say that an increase of brutality did not occur. Perhaps some undesirable elements which, in the name of the SA, did this or that, had slipped in but in general I cannot say that an overall increase of brutality took place.

DR. MARX: Did you conclude that _Der Stürmer_ exerted an influence in the SA with the result that an anti-Semitic tendency made itself felt among the men under your command? Did you not read a different publication, _Der SA Mann_?

WURZBACHER: _Der Stürmer_ had a very divided reception, I might say, especially among the people in Nuremberg and in particular in the SA. There were large numbers in the SA who, if they did not exactly reject _Der Stürmer_, were in fact not interested because of the tedious repetitions contained in it, and for this reason the paper was of no importance to them. Moreover, it was natural that members of the SA read their own paper, _Der SA Mann_, first.

DR. MARX: When you attended a meeting in which Streicher spoke, what impression did you gain of the objectives which he pursued in his speech with regard to the solution of the Jewish problem?

WURZBACHER: The objectives which were stated by Streicher were, I should say, unequivocal and clear. He pursued the policy that the strong elements of the Jewish people which occupied positions in the German economy and above all in public life and public offices should be removed and that necessarily, expulsion or emigration should be considered.

DR. MARX: Did you participate in the boycott on 1 April 1933 in any way?

WURZBACHER: Yes, I participated in the boycott. At that time I had instructions from my Gruppenführer to see to it that this boycott should be kept within the limits of order and propriety, and that in this way the success of the boycott would be assured. I instructed the Sturmführer under my command to assign to each department store a guard of two SA men who were to see to it that nothing happened and everything took its course in an orderly and unobjectionable fashion.

DR. MARX: Were there not instructions from Streicher also?

WURZBACHER: Yes. The instructions which I received from my Gruppenführer had been issued by Gauleiter Streicher.

DR. MARX: Were attacks on Jews not to be prevented by all means?

WURZBACHER: That was so not only in this one case, but in all cases. It was repeatedly pointed out that we were to refrain from attacks or unauthorized acts of violence or other hostile acts against the Jewish people or Jewish individuals, especially in Nuremberg, and that it was strictly prohibited...

DR. MARX: What was Streicher’s reaction when he heard that nevertheless such acts of violence had been perpetrated by individuals?

WURZBACHER: I can cite one example in which violence was used. I believe it was a small scuffle, at any rate, something had happened, but I do not recall the details of the case. In any event, he called us very sharply to account, and we SA leaders were severely reprimanded and rebuked.

DR. MARX: And what did he say? Did he make a general statement?

WURZBACHER: If I may give the essence of it, he said that he would not tolerate that human beings be beaten or molested in any way in his Gau, and for the SA leaders he had rather drastic expressions such as ruffians or similar names—I do not recall them exactly.

DR. MARX: But he was called the Bloody Czar of Franconia. How is that to be explained?

WURZBACHER: Perhaps it was his manner, the way he behaved at times. Sometimes he could be very harsh and outspoken. At any rate I can only say that during my activity I did not experience anything or hear anything suggesting that he was a “bloody czar.”

DR. MARX: Do you know what his attitude was toward concentration camps? Did he visit Dachau? If so, how often, and what did he do about it?

WURZBACHER: I cannot give you any information on that point. I know just one thing and that is that he said repeatedly that people who had been taken to Dachau should be freed as soon as possible if there was no criminal or other charge against them. I also know of several cases of release very soon after the arrest of the people or their removal to a concentration camp. For example the teacher Matt, who was an old adversary of his in the Town Hall of Nuremberg, was released after a very short time—I believe three or four months. Another man, a certain Defender, who had been active primarily in labor unions, was also released after a very short period of time. If I remember correctly, it was about the year 1935 or perhaps the beginning of 1936—I do not know exactly—when the last inmates left the camp at Dachau and were greeted with music upon their return.

DR. MARX: Was it not held against him that he freed so many members of the left-wing parties from Dachau?

WURZBACHER: It was said here and there by members of the SA that the Gauleiter’s action could hardly be justified, that he took too light a view of these things and so on, but we also pointed out that after all the Gauleiter bore the responsibility and that he ought to know just what he had to do in this or that case.

DR. MARX: Do you know that Himmler told Streicher of his displeasure at these releases and said that disciplinary action would be taken against him if he continued with them? If you know nothing about this matter, please say: “No.”

WURZBACHER: No.

DR. MARX: Then I have concluded my questioning of the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any member of the Defense Counsel wish to ask questions?

Does the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, no questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire.

[_The witness left the stand._]

THE PRESIDENT: Does that conclude your case, Dr. Marx?

DR. MARX: Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: Then we go on with Dr. Schacht’s case next.

DR. DIX: I begin my presentation of evidence with the calling of Dr. Schacht as a witness, and I ask Your Lordship to permit Dr. Schacht to enter the witness box.

[_The Defendant Schacht took the stand._]

THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?

HJALMAR SCHACHT (Defendant): Hjalmar Schacht.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.

[_The witness repeated the oath._]

You may sit down.

DR. DIX: Please tell the Tribunal briefly about your descent?

SCHACHT: The families of both my parents have lived for centuries in Schleswig-Holstein, which until 1864 belonged to Denmark. My parents were both born as Danish citizens. After the annexation by Germany my father emigrated to the United States, where three of his older brothers had already emigrated, and he became an American citizen. My two brothers, who were older than I, were born there. Later my mother’s health prompted my father’s return to Germany.

I was educated in Hamburg. I studied at universities in Germany and in Paris, and after receiving my doctor’s degree I was active for 2 years in economic organizations. Then I began my banking career, and for 13 years I was at the Dresdner Bank, one of the large so-called “D” banks. I then took over the management of a bank of my own, which was later merged with one of the “D” banks, and in 1923 I abandoned my private career and went into public service as Commissioner for German Currency (Reichswährungskommissar). Soon afterwards I became President of the Reichsbank, and I held that office until 1930, when I resigned.

DR. DIX: Why did you resign as President of the Reichsbank at that time?

SCHACHT: In two essential points there were differences of opinion between the Government and me; one was the internal finance policy of the Government. With the terrible catastrophe of the lost war and the Dictate of Versailles behind us, it was necessary in my opinion to use thrifty and modest methods in German politics. The democratic and socialist governments of that period could not see that point, but carried on an irresponsible financial policy, especially by incurring debts which in particular were contracted to a very large extent abroad. It was quite clear that Germany, already heavily burdened with reparation payments, was under no circumstances in a position to build up as much foreign currency as was necessary for the payment of these debts. We were not even able to pay the reparations from our own economy.

Therefore I objected to the contraction of these debts in which the various governments of that period indulged, and to which they also encouraged communities and private companies. I objected to this financial policy and continually, abroad and at home, warned against such a policy of incurring foreign debts. The foreign bankers did not listen nor did the German Government. It was during that period that if in Berlin one passed the Adlon Hotel, Unter Den Linden, one could not be sure that a financial agent would not emerge and ask whether one did not need a loan.

Later I was strongly opposed by these same people, when Germany was forced to discontinue making payments of her debts. But I wish to state here that I have always and on every occasion been against such a policy of debts. That was the one reason. The other reason was in the field of foreign policy. I had not only contributed my part toward the creation of the Young Plan but in 1929 I also assisted in the setting up of the Young Committee; the so-called Young Plan had resulted in a number of improvements for Germany, which the German Government was now sacrificing step by step during the subsequent negotiations at The Hague. Thus the financial and economic condition of the nation again deteriorated. I revolted against this, and for both these reasons I resigned my office as Reichsbankpräsident in protest, in March 1930.

DR. DIX: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, in this connection, may I call your attention to Exhibit Number Schacht-6 of my Document Book. If the Tribunal agrees, I should like, in order to shorten the presentation of documents during the examination of the witness, to call your attention to those documents which have a direct connection with the questions with which the witness is dealing. I believe that this arrangement will be agreeable to the Tribunal since it will shorten the presentation of documents. It is Document Number Schacht-6, on Page 12 of the German copy of my document book and on Page 8 of the English copy, Your Lordship, Exhibit Number Schacht-6. That is a record of the statements made by Dr. Schacht during the session of the subcommittee for monetary and credit matters on 21 October 1926. I believe it is not necessary for me to read these statements. They refer to the foreign debts which Dr. Schacht has just mentioned, and contain the same thoughts which Dr. Schacht has just expressed before the Tribunal, and are proof that these thoughts are not views _ex post facto_. Therefore, without reading it, I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the whole of this document.

I shall return to my examination.

[_Turning to the witness._] You had resigned your office as President of the Reichsbank. What did you do then?

SCHACHT: I went to the small estate which I owned in the country and lived there as a private citizen. Then in 1930 I made a trip to the United States. I departed shortly or immediately after the Reichstag elections of September 1930 and went to New York via London. There I lectured for about two months on questions which were presented to me by American friends.

DR. DIX: When did you first get in touch with the National Socialist ideology, with the Party, and with Hitler personally, and when, in particular, did you read the Party program and Hitler’s _Mein Kampf_?

SCHACHT: With the exception of a single occasion I have never in my life concerned myself with Party politics. Even at the age of 26 I was offered a sure electoral district in the Reichstag, which I did not accept, since I have never been interested in Party politics. My interest always lay in the field of economics and financial policy but, of course, for public affairs I always had a general interest, arising from a concern for the future of my country and my people.

Therefore, in 1919, I participated in the foundation of the Democratic Party.

May I say a few words here about my background and spiritual upbringing? My father, throughout his life, adhered to democratic ideals. He was a Freemason. He was a cosmopolitan. I had, and I still have, numerous relatives on my mother’s side in Denmark and on my father’s side in the United States, and to this day I am on friendly terms with them. I grew up among these ideas and I have never departed from these basic conceptions of Freemasonry and democracy and humanitarian and cosmopolitan ideals. Later I always remained in very close contact with foreign countries. I traveled much, and with the exception of Ireland and Finland there is no country in Europe which I have not visited. I know Asia down to India, Ceylon, and Burma. I went to North America frequently, and just before the Second World War broke out I intended to travel to South America.

I want to emphasize this in order to show that I was never interested in Party politics. Nevertheless, when in the elections of September 1930 Hitler’s party suddenly and surprisingly obtained 108 seats, I began to take an interest in the phenomenon; and on board ship going to the United States I read _Mein Kampf_ and, of course, also the Party program. When I arrived on the other side the first question was what was my opinion about Hitler and the Party, because naturally everyone was talking about this event in Germany. In my first publication at that time—it was an interview—I uttered an unequivocal warning and said, “If you people abroad do not change your policy towards Germany, then you will soon have very many more adherents of Hitler in Germany than there are now.” Throughout that period of 2 months I spoke about 50 times in public meetings, and I always met with understanding in the question of reparations, the mistakes of the Versailles Treaty, and the economic difficulties of Germany, and I returned with the impression that the whole American attitude, the attitude of the American people toward us, was indeed rather friendly. Not on my initiative but by coincidence, I got in touch with the adherents of the National Socialist Party. A friend of mine, a bank director, invited me at the beginning of December 1930 to dine with him at his house and to meet Hermann Göring there. I did so and gained no really definite impression from Göring’s statements and conduct. He was in every respect reserved, modest, and well-mannered, and he invited me to his house in order to meet Hitler. At the beginning of January my wife and I dined with Göring and his wife one evening at their home, and on that occasion, Fritz Thyssen was also invited. It had been planned that Hitler should come also and talk with us. I say again now that Göring’s apartment was extremely modestly and simply styled. We had a plain pea soup and bacon and particularly Göring’s first wife made an excellent impression. After supper Hitler appeared, and the ensuing conversation was conducted in such a way that, let us say, 5 percent of it was contributed by us, and 95 percent by Hitler. What he said concerned national questions, in which he agreed absolutely with us. No extravagant demands were stated, but on the other hand the national necessities of Germany were definitely emphasized. In social questions Hitler expressed a number of good ideas; he was especially intent on avoiding class struggle and on eliminating strikes, lock-outs, and wage disputes by decisive intervention of the State in labor relations and the direction of economic affairs. There was no demand for abolishing private enterprise, but merely for influence in its conduct. It seemed to us these ideas were quite reasonable and acceptable. Aside from that, he revealed practically no knowledge in the field of economy and financial policy, though on that evening he did not claim to know anything about these subjects. He merely asked that we as representatives of economy should have understanding for his ideas and give him factual advice. That was the purpose of that evening.

DR. DIX: I shall refer to this first conversation with Adolf Hitler later, but I should like to return now to the question I have put before concerning your attitude to the Party program and the ideology developed in the book, _Mein Kampf_. I am stressing this because, as you have heard, the gentlemen of the Prosecution are of the opinion that certain parts of the Party program as such and also parts of the book, _Mein Kampf_, are of a criminal character, and that their criminal character was recognizable immediately upon their publication. Therefore I should like to ask you to explain in detail your attitude at the time, and possibly also your attitude today, toward the Party program and the ideology of National Socialism as it appears in the book _Mein Kampf_.

SCHACHT: From the proceedings in this Court so far I have not gained the impression that the opinion of the Prosecution concerning the criminal character of the Party program is a uniform one. I am unable to see in the Party program as such any sign of criminal intentions.

Federation of all Germans, which always plays a great role, is always claimed only on the basis of the right for self-determination. A position for Germany in foreign politics is demanded as constituting equality of the German nation with the other nations; that this involved the abolition of the discriminations which were imposed upon the German people by the Versailles Treaty is quite clear.

Land and soil was demanded for the nutrition of our people and the settlement of our excess population. I cannot see any crime in that, because after land and soil was expressly added in brackets the word “colonies.” I have always considered that as a demand for colonies, which I myself supported a long time before National Socialism came into existence. Rather strange and, in my opinion, going somewhat beyond the limits were the points concerning the exclusion of Jews from civil rights, but on the other hand it was reassuring that the Jews were to be under the protection of the Aliens’ Law, that is, subject to the same laws which applied to foreigners in Germany. I would have wished and always demanded that this legal protection should under all circumstances be given to the Jews. Unfortunately they were not given that protection. For the rest it was emphasized that all citizens should have equal rights and duties.

Promotion of popular education was stressed as being beneficial, and also gymnastics and sports were demanded for the improvement of public health. The fight against deliberate political lies was demanded, which Goebbels afterwards conducted very energetically. And, above all, demand was made for the freedom of all religious denominations and for the principle of positive Christianity.

That is, in essence, the content of the National Socialist Party program, and I cannot see anything criminal in it. It would, indeed, have been quite peculiar if, had this been a criminal Party program, the world had maintained continuous political and cultural contact with Germany for two decades, and with the National Socialists for one decade.

As far as the book, _Mein Kampf_, is concerned, my judgment has always been the same from the very beginning as it is today. It is a book written in the worst kind of German, propaganda of a man who was strongly interested in politics, not to say a fanatical, half educated man, which to me Hitler has always been. In the book _Mein Kampf_ and in part also in the Party program there was one point which worried me a great deal, and that was the absolute lack of understanding for all economic problems. The Party program contained a few slogans, such as “Community interests come before private interests,” and so on, and then the “breaking up of subjection to financial interests” and similar phrases which could not possibly signify anything sensible. The same held true for _Mein Kampf_, which is of no interest from the point of view of economic policy and consequently had no interest for me.

On the other hand, as regards foreign policy _Mein Kampf_ contained, in my opinion, a great many mistakes, because it always toyed with the idea that within the continent of Europe the living space for Germany ought to be extended. And if nevertheless I did co-operate later on with a National Socialist Reich Chancellor, then it was for the very simple reason that expansion of the German space toward the East was in the book made specifically dependent upon the approval of the British Government. Therefore, to me, believing that I knew British policy very well, this seemed Utopian and there was no danger of my taking these theoretical extravagances of Hitler any more seriously than I did. It was clear to me that every territorial change on European territory attempted by force would be impossible for Germany, and would not be approved by the other nations.

Besides that, _Mein Kampf_ had a number of very silly and verbose statements but, on the other hand, it had many a reasonable idea, too; I want to point out that I liked two things especially: first, that anyone who differs with the government in political matters is obliged to state his opinion to the government; and secondly, that, though the democratic or rather parliamentary government ought to be replaced by a Führer government, nevertheless the Führer could only remain if he was sure of the approval of the entire people, in other words, that a Führer also depended on plebiscites of a democratic nature.

DR. DIX: Dr. Schacht, you have now described the impression which you gained from your first conversation with Adolf Hitler, as well as from a study of the Party program and _Mein Kampf_. Did you believe that you would be able to work with Adolf Hitler and what practical conclusions did you derive from that first conversation with Hitler?

SCHACHT: To work with Adolf Hitler was out of the question for me personally, since I was a private citizen and not interested in Party politics and consequently after that conversation I did nothing at all to create for myself any personal relations with the Hitler circles. I simply went back to my farm and I continued to live there as a private citizen. So personally, for myself I did not draw any conclusions but I drew another conclusion. I have already said that naturally I had the future of my country at heart. After that conversation I repeatedly emphasized to Reich Chancellor Brüning and implored him when forming and heading the Cabinet to include the National Socialists in it, because I believed that only in this way the tremendous impetus, the tremendous propagandistic fervor which I had noticed in Hitler, could be caught and harnessed—by putting the National Socialists to practical government work. One should not leave them in the opposition where they could only become more dangerous, but one should take them into the government and see what they could achieve and whether they would not acquire polish within the government. That was the suggestion and the very urgent request I made to Brüning, and I might say that according to my impression Hitler would at that time have been quite ready to do that. Brüning could under no circumstances be won over to such a policy and in consequence was later crushed.

DR. DIX: Let us stop for a moment and deal with the Party. The Indictment states that you were a Party member. Now, Göring has already said that Hitler conferred the Golden Party Emblem only as a sort of decoration. Do you have anything new to add to that statement made by Göring?

SCHACHT: I do not know whether it has been mentioned here; the Golden Party Emblem was in January 1937 given to all Ministers and also to all military personalities in the Cabinet. The latter could not become Party members at all; therefore the award of the Party emblem did not entail membership. As to the rest I think Göring has testified from the witness stand. I might mention one more thing. If I had been a Party member, then doubtlessly when I was ousted from my position as Minister without Portfolio in January 1943, the Party Court would have gone into action, since a case of insubordination to Hitler would have been evident. I was never before the Party Court and even when on the occasion of my dismissal the return of the Golden Party Emblem was demanded from me, I was not told that I was being dismissed from the Party, since I was not in the Party. I was only told “return the Golden Emblem of the Party which was conferred upon you,” and I promptly complied.

I believe I could not add anything else to the statements already made.

DR. DIX: Then the Indictment is wrong in this point?

SCHACHT: Yes; in this point it is absolutely wrong.

DR. DIX: Why did you not become a Party member?

SCHACHT: Excuse me, but I was opposed to quite a number of points of the National Socialist ideology. I do not believe that it would have been compatible with my entirely democratic attitude to change over to a different Party program, and one which, not in its wording but through its execution by the Party had certainly not—in the course of time—gained any more favor with me.

DR. DIX: Therefore, you did not become a Party member for reasons of principle?

SCHACHT: Yes, for reasons of principle.

DR. DIX: Now, a biography of you was published by one Dr. Reuther in 1937. There, also, it is correctly stated that you were not a Party member; but the biographer gives different, more tactical reasons for your refusing to join the Party; and he mentions the possibility of being more influential from outside the Party and so on. Maybe it is advisable, since the biography has been referred to in the course of the proceedings, that you shortly state your views on this point?

SCHACHT: I believe that at the time Hitler had the impression that I could be useful to him outside of the Party and it may be that Dr. Reuther got knowledge of this. But I would rather not be made responsible for the writings of Dr. Reuther, and in particular I should like to object to the fact that the Prosecutor who presented the brief against me described this book by Dr. Reuther as an official publication. Of course this book is the private work of a journalist for whom I have respect but who certainly states his own opinions and ideas.

DR. DIX: Did you speak in public on behalf of Hitler before the July elections in 1932?

SCHACHT: Before the July elections of 1932, which brought that tremendous success for Hitler, I was never active either publicly or privately on behalf of Hitler, except once, perhaps, or twice—I remember now, it happened once—Hitler sent a Party member to me who had plans on economic, financial, or currency policies; Hitler may have told him that he should consult me as to whether or not these plans could be put into practice. I might tell the story briefly: It was Gauleiter Röwer of Oldenburg. In Oldenburg the Nazis had already come to power before 1932 and he was the Minister President there. He wanted to introduce an Oldenburg currency of its own, a consequence of which would have been that Saxony would have introduced its own Saxon currency, Württemberg would have introduced its own currency, and Baden would have had its own currency, and so on. I ridiculed the whole thing at the time and sent a telegram to Hitler, saying that the economic needs of the German Reich could not be cured by such miracles. If I disregard this case, which might have constituted some sort of private connection, then I may say that neither privately nor publicly, neither in speeches nor in writing, have I at all been concerned with Hitler or his Party and in no way have I recommended the Party.

DR. DIX: Did you vote National Socialist in July 1932?

SCHACHT: No, I would not think of it.

DR. DIX: The Prosecution now lists a number of points by which it wants to prove that you were an adherent of the National Socialist ideology. I am going to name them one by one, and I ask you to state your view on each of them. First, that you were an opponent of the Treaty of Versailles. Would you like to say something about that?

SCHACHT: It surprised me indeed to hear that reproach from an American Prosecutor. The lieutenant who spoke is perhaps too young to have experienced it himself, but he should know it from his education; at any rate, for all of us who have lived through that time, it was one of the outstanding events that the Treaty of Versailles was rejected by the United States, and, if I am not wrong, rejected with the resounding approval of the entire American people.

The reasons prompting that action were also my reasons for rejecting the Treaty: it stood in contradiction to the Fourteen Points of Wilson, which had been solemnly agreed upon, and in the field of economics it contained absurdities which certainly could not work out to the advantage of world economy. But I certainly would not accuse the American people of having been adherents of the Nazi ideology, because they rejected the Treaty.

DR. DIX: The Prosecution also assert that you had already been for a long time a German National Socialist, not merely a German patriot, but a German nationalist and expansionist. Would you like to state your position in that respect?

SCHACHT: You, yourself, by emphasizing the word “patriot” have recognized that one must be clear on just what a nationalist is. I have always been proud to belong to a nation which for more than a thousand years has been one of the leading civilized nations of the world. I was proud to belong to a nation which has given to the world men like Luther, Kant, Goethe, Beethoven, to mention only a few. I have always interpreted nationalism as the desire of a nation to be an example to other nations, and to maintain a leading position in the field of spiritual and cultural achievement through high moral standards and intellectual attainment.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If it please the Tribunal, it seems to me that we are getting very far from the relevant charges in this case, and particularly if they are going to be preceded by a statement of the Prosecution’s position.

We have no charge against Dr. Schacht because he opposed the Treaty of Versailles; we concede it was the right of any German citizen to do that by any means short of war. Nor do we object to his being a patriotic German by any means short of war. The only purpose has been to find out what his attitude in those matters was in connection with the charge that he prepared and precipitated war.

To deal with philosophical matters separately from the war charge seems to me entirely irrelevant, and I assure the Tribunal we have no purpose in charging that it is a crime to oppose the Treaty of Versailles. Many Americans did that. It is no crime to be a German patriot. The crime is the one defined in the Indictment, and it seems to me we are a long way off from that here, and wasting time.

THE PRESIDENT: What do you say to that, Dr. Dix?

DR. DIX: I was eager and glad to hear what Justice Jackson just said, but I must quote from Wallenstein, “Before dinner we heard another version.” There was no doubt—and once, because I thought I had misunderstood, I even asked again—that the criminal character of the Party program, the criminal character of the contents of _Mein Kampf_—reproachable in itself and, to say the least, indicative of crimes committed later—the willful opposition to the Treaty of Versailles—and further the accusation of having been an expansionist and nationalist, all these things have repeatedly in the course of the proceedings here been held against Dr. Schacht in order to strengthen the foundation of the charges made against him.

If Mr. Justice Jackson now with gratifying frankness states, “We do not at all blame Schacht for opposing the Treaty of Versailles; we do not assert that he was more than a patriot, that is to say, a nationalist in the sense described before, and we do not maintain either that these our statements are circumstantial evidence for his later co-operation, his financial co-operation, in the rearmament program, which in turn is proof indicative of his intent to assist in waging a war of aggression”—if that is now stated unequivocally by the Prosecution, then we can dispense with a great many questions which I intended to put in the course of my examination of the witness; I would then gladly leave the whole subject of Schacht’s expansionism and nationalism. We have not yet mentioned expansionism; Mr. Justice Jackson has not mentioned it either. I do not believe, however, that the Prosecution will withdraw the accusation of expansionism, that is the expansion of German living space in Europe. I am not sure of this but we shall certainly hear about it. As I said, if these accusations which have been made are withdrawn, then I can dispense with these questions and my client need not answer them.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Of course, I made no such statement as Dr. Dix has assumed. My statement was clearly made in the opening and clearly is now, that he had a perfect right to be against the Treaty of Versailles and to be a German nationalist and to follow those aims by all means short of war. I do not want to have put in my mouth the very extensive statements made by Dr. Dix.

My statement was made clear in the opening, and these matters as to the Versailles Treaty and nationalism and Lebensraum, as political and philosophical matters, are not for the Court to determine. We are not going to ask you to say whether the Treaty of Versailles was a just document or not. It was a document. They had a right to do what they could to get away from it by all means short of war.

The charge against Dr. Schacht is that he prepared, knowingly, to accomplish those things by means of aggressive warfare. That is the nub of the case against him.

DR. DIX: Then on this point there is...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, I think the case for the Prosecution has been clear from the outset, that all these matters are only relied upon when they were entered into with the intention of making war.

DR. DIX: Very true. I need not put these questions if the Prosecution no longer uses these accusations as circumstantial evidence for his intent to wage a war of aggression, but Mr. Justice Jackson has not yet made a statement to that effect. But there seems to be no doubt—and I do not believe that I misunderstood the Prosecution—that in order to prove Dr. Schacht’s intention to wage a war of aggression, the Prosecution did refer to Schacht’s opposition to the Treaty of Versailles, to his nationalism and expansionism that is, extension of Lebensraum. We do not want to make academic or theoretical statements about the ideas of Lebensraum and nationalism, but as long as these ideas, which the Prosecution concedes he is justified in holding, as long as these characteristics are considered to be in part proof of his intent, my client must have the opportunity of telling the Tribunal just what he meant by Lebensraum if he ever spoke of it, which I do not yet know. But I think, nevertheless, that there is still a matter not quite clear between Mr. Justice Jackson and me, and that I do not quite agree either with what was said by Your Lordship...

THE PRESIDENT: What you were asking him about was his views on nationalism. That is what you were asking him about, his views upon nationalism, and that seems to be a waste of time.

DR. DIX: I put to him that he was accused of being a nationalist and an expansionist, and that the Prosecution therefrom drew the conclusion that he planned an aggressive war by financing armament; now he has to show, of course, that...

THE PRESIDENT: What Mr. Justice Jackson has pointed out is that the Prosecution have never said that he simply held the views of a nationalist and of an expansionist, but that he held those views and intended to go to war in order to enforce them.

DR. DIX: Yes, Your Lordship, but it is held that these opinions were proof—one proof among others—that he had the intention of waging aggressive war; that they therefore constitute what we jurists should call circumstantial evidence for his intent, to wage war, and as long as this argument—it is no longer a charge maintained by Justice Jackson but it is an argument of the Prosecution...

THE PRESIDENT: There is no issue about it. He agrees that he did hold these views. Therefore it is quite unnecessary to go into the fact. The Prosecution say he held the views; he agrees that he held the views. The only question is whether he held them with the innocent intention of achieving them by peaceful methods, or whether he had the alleged criminal intention of achieving them by war.

DR. DIX: I only wish to say one more thing to that. Expansionism has not yet been discussed. Should Dr. Schacht have had expansionist tendencies, then Mr. Justice Jackson certainly would not say that he has no objection. Therefore...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, I think that you may ask him questions about the expansionists, his ideas of what expansionists were, what he meant by expansion, but for the rest it seems to me you are simply proving exactly the same as the Prosecution have proved.

DR. DIX: I fully agree. Dr. Schacht, were you...

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

[_A recess was taken until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

DR. DIX: I believe, Dr. Schacht, that both of us will have to speak a little more slowly and pause between question and answer.

Now, please reply to the accusation by the Prosecution that you were an expansionist. Please define your position.

SCHACHT: Never in my life have I demanded even a foot of space that did not belong to Germany, nor would I ever entertain such an idea.

I am of the opinion that neither is it national to try to dominate and govern foreign peoples, nor is appropriation of foreign territory a politically just action.

These are two questions with which we are much concerned at present.

I might perhaps add, in order to clarify my position, just what I understand by nationalism, and just why I was against each and every form of expansionism. Just one sentence will suffice, a sentence from a speech which I made in August of 1935. On that occasion I said, and I quote:

“We want to express the belief that self-respect requires respect for others, and the upholding of our national individuality must not mean disparagement of the individuality of others; by respecting the acts of others we respect our own action; and a battle of economic competition can be won in the end only through example and achievement and not through methods of violence or craft.”

DR. DIX: According to the opinion of the Prosecution, in the year 1936 you made a public threat of war, on which occasion you are alleged to have said that the spirit of Versailles was instrumental in keeping alive war mania. I am referring to Document EC-415, a document to which the Prosecution has referred.

SCHACHT: I never understood, in the course of this proceeding, how there could be a threat of war in this quotation. The quotation concludes with the words—and I must quote in English because I just have the English words before me:

“The spirit of Versailles is perpetuated in the fury of war, and there will not be a true peace, progress, or reconstruction until the world desists from this spirit. The German people will not tire of pronouncing this warning.”

The conclusion says that the German people will not tire of pronouncing this warning. It seems to be a matter of course that hereby expression is given to the fact that I am warning others from persisting in war mania. I am not warning ourselves, but the entire world, to avoid perpetuating the spirit of Versailles.

DR. DIX: The Prosecution further accuses you in this connection that you publicly approved the idea of Lebensraum, for the German people. In this special connection reference was made to the speech you made at Frankfurt on 9 December 1936, in which you said: “Germany has too limited Lebensraum for her population.”

SCHACHT: This speech of 9 December 1936 was a speech which was solely concerned with a restoration of the colonial rights of Germany. I have never demanded any Lebensraum for Germany other than colonial space. And in this instance, again, I am surprised that just the American Prosecutor should accuse me on my efforts in this direction, because in the Fourteen Points of Wilson, which regrettably were not adhered to later on, the colonial interests of the Germans are taken into consideration. In consequence, I said, again and again: “If you want peace in Europe, give Germany an economic outlet into which Germany can develop and from which she can satisfy her needs. Otherwise Germany will be a center of unrest and a problem for Europe.”

I would like to quote one sentence only from the speech I made:

“Peace in Europe, together with the peace of the entire world, is dependent upon whether or not the densely populated areas of Central Europe will have the means of existence.”

I emphasized this viewpoint again and again, but at no time did I connect these views with the idea of an armed conflict.

I would like to quote another sentence from this same speech:

“I did not mention this consideration as to the parts of Germany which were separated from her”—and I am speaking of the losses suffered by Germany—“in order that we might draw the conclusion of warlike intentions; my entire position and my work are marshaled to the objective of bringing about peace in Europe through peaceful and sensible considerations and measures.”

THE PRESIDENT: Will you please give me the PS numbers and the exhibit numbers of those two speeches?

DR. DIX: I cannot at this moment, Your Lordship, I am sorry, but I will try to get them and submit them in writing. The last is the speech at Frankfurt, and the others...

THE PRESIDENT: That is quite all right. You will let us know in writing, will you?

DR. DIX: Yes, indeed.

SCHACHT: Perhaps if it is permitted I might refer to two other sentences from my article which was published in _Foreign Affairs_, the well-known American magazine, in the year 1937. I have the German translation before me, which says, in the introduction, and I quote:

“I am making these introductory remarks in order to clarify the situation. The colonial problem today, as in the past, is for Germany not a question of imperialism or militarism, but still surely and simply a question of economic existence.”

Perhaps I might refer to the point that very influential Americans were in constant accord with this view. I have a statement made by the collaborator of President Wilson, Colonel House, who made the well-known distinction between the “haves” and “have nots,” and who was especially influential in advocating consideration for German colonial interests. Perhaps I can dispense with the quotation.

DR. DIX: In this connection I should like to point to the document submitted by the Prosecution, Document L-111, Exhibit USA-630. This document is concerned with the conversation which you had with the American Ambassador Davies, and in which you are accused of having indirectly threatened a breach of peace.

SCHACHT: I have already set forth just now that I constantly said that Europe cannot have peaceful development if there are no means of livelihood for the completely overpopulated Central Europe, and I believe conditions at present show how absolutely right I was—just what an impossibility it is to feed these masses of people within Europe. And beyond that I had a keen interest in diverting Hitler’s quite misguided ideas from Eastern Europe and therefore was constantly at pains to direct his attention to the colonial problem so that I could turn his thought from the mad ideas of expansionism in the East. I recall that in 1932, shortly before he assumed office, I had a conversation with him in which for the first time I approached him on these facts and particularly told him what utter nonsense it would be to think of an expansion in the East.

Then, constantly, in the subsequent years, again and again, I spoke about the colonial problem, until at the last in the summer of 1936 I had the possibility of pursuing my ideas and Hitler gave me the mission, which I had suggested to him, of going to Paris to discuss with the French Government the possibility of a satisfactory solution of the question of colonies for Germany. This actually happened in the summer of 1936. And for the satisfaction of myself and all other friends of peace, I might say that the Government of Léon Blum, which was in office at the time, showed gratifying appreciation of this solution for Europe’s food and economic problems, and for their part stated that they were ready to deal with the colonial problem with the aim of perhaps returning one or two colonies to Germany. Léon Blum then undertook, in agreement with me, to inform the British Government about these conversations in order to secure their consent or to bring up a discussion of this problem within the British Government. That actually did take place, but the British Government hesitated for months before they finally could decide on any position in this matter and so the discussion dragged on up to the initial months of the Spanish civil war and was eclipsed and supplanted by the problems of the Spanish civil war, so that a continuation of the discussion on this colonial problem never came about.

At that time, in January of 1937, when the American Ambassador to Moscow, Ambassador Joseph Davies, visited me at Berlin, I was rather irritated by the slowness with which the British Government was meeting these suggestions, and consequently I came forth with a request for understanding and support and told Ambassador Davies about this whole matter. I tried constantly and repeatedly to gain the understanding support of representatives of the American Government. I tried again and again to advise these gentlemen about domestic conditions and developments within Germany, to tell them as much as was possible and compatible with German interests and to keep them informed. That applies to Ambassador Davies, Ambassador Dodd, Ambassador Bullitt when he was in Berlin, and so on.

This conversation with Ambassador Davies is referred to in the document which the Prosecution has submitted, Document L-111, and which is taken from the book which Ambassador Davies wrote about his mission in Moscow, and we will perhaps come back to this book later.

As the gist of my conversation with Davies I would like to quote just one sentence again, which I must again quote in English, since I have only the English book at my disposal.

“Schacht earnestly urged that some such feasible plan could be developed if discussions could be opened; and that, if successful, would relieve the European war menace, relieve peoples of enormous expenditures for armaments, restore free flow of international commerce, give outlet to thrift and natural abilities of his countrymen and change their present desperation into future hope.”

DR. DIX: In this connection the affidavit of Fuller plays an important part, that is Exhibit USA-629, and Document EC-450. According to this affidavit, you allegedly declared to Fuller that if Germany could not get colonies through negotiations she would take them. Please define your position as to this statement.

SCHACHT: In a German drama an intriguer is being instructed by a tyrant to bring a man of honor to ruin, and he says in reply, “Just give me one word said by this man, and I will hang him thereby.” I believe, My Lord Justices, that in this courtroom there is not a single person who at one time or another in his life has not said a rather unfortunate word. And how much easier is it when he is speaking in a foreign language of which he is not completely master.

Mr. Fuller is known to me as a respectable business man, and this discussion which he has here reproduced is indubitably done according to the best of his knowledge. He himself rightly says that even had he tried to put down the exact words he could not guarantee that each and every word has been said. But if I did say these words, then it seems only that I said we Germans must have colonies and we shall have them. Whether I said, “We shall take them,” or “We shall get them,” that, of course, it is impossible for me to say with certainty today after a period of 10 years.

The representative of the Prosecution also thought the expression, “We will take them,” a little colorless in effect and therefore I believe he just added a trifle, for he said twice in his presentation of the charges that I had said, “We will take these colonies by force,” and on a second occasion he even said, “We will take these colonies by force of arms.” But “force” or “force of arms” are not mentioned in the whole of Fuller’s affidavit. And if I had used that word or even used it only by implication, Mr. Fuller would have had to say with reason: “So you want to take colonies by force; how do you expect to do that?” It would have been utter nonsense to assert that Germany would ever have been able to take overseas colonies by force. She lacked—and always will lack—domination of the seas, which is necessary for this.

Fuller did not take exception to my manner of expression and in his conversation he immediately continued—and I quote:

“You mentioned a little while ago that necessary raw materials could not be obtained, owing to German lack of foreign exchange. Would stabilization help you?”

Therefore, rather than to become excited about the fact that I wanted to take colonies by force—something which I never said and which is contrary to my views, as I have already stated—he immediately goes on to foreign exchange and to stabilization.

DR. DIX: The prosecutor asserts further that you were interested in the conquest of neighboring territory in Europe.

SCHACHT: This matter is not quite so harmless as the previous mistake of the Prosecution. In a previous interrogation, I was accused as follows, and the prosecutor, in presenting his charges here, referred to the fact—I quote the prosecutor:

“On 16 April, on the occasion of the Paris conference on reparation payments, Schacht said, ‘Germany in general can pay only if the Corridor and Upper Silesia are returned to Germany.’”

This is the interrogation of 24 August 1945. According to the verbatim record of the interrogation, I answered:

“It may be that I said such a thing.”

Of course, as far as the wording of a statement, which I had made 10 to 15 years before, I did not recall it. But I did remember that in connection with the Corridor and Upper Silesia I had made a remark, and since I had to assume that if the Prosecution submitted this record to me it would be an accurate stenographic record, for that reason I did not dispute this remark which I had allegedly made and said that it might be that I said something to that effect. The Prosecution takes a “maybe” and out of that reconstructed the following sentence:

“This quotation was read to Schacht, and he said it was correct.”

This assertion by the Prosecution is therefore wrong. I said, “It may be that I said something to that effect,” but I did not say that this statement that was submitted to me was correct.

Then, fortunately, in my imprisonment here, I succeeded in getting hold of my book, a book which I wrote about the termination of reparation payments, which was published in 1931 and in which I luckily put down the text of my statement about the matter we are dealing with now. I have the exact text, and I would like to say that this book has been submitted in evidence, and from this text appears what I said verbatim:

“Regarding the problem of German food and food supplies, it is especially important that import of foodstuffs has been decreased”—I beg your pardon—“that import will be decreased.”—I am sorry again. I cannot read this—“that the import of foodstuffs will be decreased and partially made up through home production. Therefore, we cannot let the fact be overlooked that important agricultural surplus territories in the eastern part of Germany have been lost by cession and that a large territory which was almost exclusively agrarian has been separated from the Reich. Therefore the economic welfare of this territory, East Prussia, is decreasing steadily and the Reich Government must support and subsidize it. Constantly, therefore, suitable measures should be taken to eliminate these injurious conditions, which are hindering considerably Germany’s ability to pay.”

DR. DIX: Your Lordship, this is from our document book, Document Schacht-16, German Page 38, English Page 44.

SCHACHT: This quotation absolutely does not agree with the statement submitted to me in the interrogation, and in no way can we draw the conclusion in consequence that I was in favor of a return of these areas. What I demanded was that the separation of these areas be taken into consideration when Germany’s ability to pay and the payments were determined. When the prosecutor in his speech added: “I would like to point out that this is the same area over which the war started in September 1939,” I believe it is an insinuation which characterizes the prosecutor, rather than me, against whom it was intended.

DR. DIX: As part of the circumstantial evidence, that is, the indirect evidence for the will to aggression, with which you are charged, the Prosecution includes your wish—your alleged wish—for the Anschluss of Austria. Will you please take your position as to this accusation?

SCHACHT: From 1919 I considered the Anschluss of Austria inevitable and, in the national sense, that is, spiritually and culturally, it was welcome. But that economically the Anschluss of Austria would not be for Germany so much an aggrandizement as a liability. I always knew. But the wish of the Austrian people to belong, to be incorporated into Germany—I took that wish as my own and said that if here there are six and a half million people who spontaneously in 1919 and later in innumerable demonstrations expressed their wish of being incorporated into the brotherhood of Greater Germany, that was an event to which no German could be opposed, but in the interest of Austria must hail with gladness. In that sense I always favored and respected the wish of Austria to belong to the Reich and wanted it carried through as soon as external political conditions permitted it.

DR. DIX: My attention has just been called to the fact that you are still speaking too fast and that the interpretation is lagging behind a little bit. Will you please speak a little more slowly.

What was your opinion as to the incorporation of the Sudetenland into Germany?

SCHACHT: Concerning the incorporation of the Sudetenland, I never thought of any such thing. Of course, Czechoslovakia was a European problem, and it was regrettable that in that state, which had five and a half million Czechs, two and a half million Slovaks and about three and a half million Germans, the German element had no means of expression. But just because the Czechoslovakian problem was not a purely German-Czech but also a Slovak-Czech problem, I sought a solution of this problem in such a way and wished it to be in such a way that Czechoslovakia should constitute a federated state, similar perhaps to Switzerland, divided into three different, culturally separate, but politically unified areas, which would be a guarantee for the unity of a German-Czech-Slovak state.

DR. DIX: What was your opinion and attitude to the problem of war; by that I mean, as far as philosophical, ideological, and practical considerations are concerned?

SCHACHT: I always considered war as one of the most devastating things to which mankind is exposed and on basic principles throughout my entire life I was a pacifist.

DR. DIX: Dr. Schacht, during your meditative and thoughtful life you have certainly considered the fundamental and profound differences between legitimate and ethically based soldiership and militarism in its various degenerate forms. What did you mean by the latter and what was your attitude toward it, that is, militarism?

SCHACHT: Of course I saw the necessity of a country’s defense in case of war or threats, and I stood for that theory. In that sense I was always in favor of a Wehrmacht, but the profession of a soldier I consider to be full of deprivations and characterized by willingness and readiness to sacrifice, not because perhaps during a war the soldier has to give up his life—that is the duty of every citizen of military age—but because his whole aim and aspiration must be directed to the end that never must the craft which he has learned be exercised. A soldier, a career officer, who is not intrinsically a pacifist, has really in my opinion missed his calling. Consequently, I was always an opponent of every military digression and excess. I was always against militarism, but I consider that soldiership conscious of its responsibility is the highest calling which a citizen can pursue.

DR. DIX: Now, George Messersmith, as you know, the Consul General of the United States at Berlin at one time, says in one of his various affidavits produced by the Prosecution that you had told him, and repeatedly told him, about Nazi intents of aggression. Will you please state your position in that regard?

SCHACHT: First of all, I would like to remark that of course I never made a statement of that sort, neither to Mr. George Messersmith nor to anyone else. As far as these three affidavits of Mr. Messersmith, which were submitted by the Prosecution, are concerned, I would like to make a further statement.

Mr. Messersmith asserts that he had frequent contact and numerous private conversations with me, and I would like to state here now that, according to my exact memory, I saw Mr. George Messersmith perhaps two or three times in my entire life. Mr. George Messersmith represents himself as having had numerous contacts and many private conversations with me, and he asserts further that his official capacity brought him in contact with me as President of the Reichsbank and as Minister of Economics.

I do not recall once having received Mr. Messersmith in my office. Mr. George Messersmith takes these two or three discussions and proceeds to characterize me. He calls me cynical, ambitious, egotistic, vain, two-faced. I am, unfortunately, not in a position to give an equally comprehensive picture of the character of Mr. Messersmith. But I must definitely dispute his trustworthiness.

And as a first reason for this I should like to quote a general remark by Mr. Messersmith. In his affidavit of 30 August 1945, Document 2385-PS, Mr. George Messersmith says, and I quote: “When the Nazi Party took over Germany, it represented only a small part of the German population.”

Contrary to that, I say that before the Nazi Party took over Germany it occupied about forty percent of all Reichstag seats. That percentage Mr. Messersmith calls a small part of the German population. If diplomatic reports are everywhere as reliable as in this instance, it is small wonder that nations do not understand each other.

I would still like to correct a specific remark by Mr. Messersmith. Mr. Messersmith asserts, as I have quoted just a minute ago, that his duty brought him in contact with me as Minister of Economics. In his affidavit of 28 August, 1760-PS, Mr. Messersmith says, and I quote: “During the wave of terrorist activity in May and June of 1934, I had already assumed my duties as American Chargé d’Affaires in Vienna.” In August of 1934 I became Minister of Economics, whereas, on the other hand, Mr. Messersmith, already in May of 1934, assumed his official duties in Vienna; but this does not prevent Mr. Messersmith from asserting that his official duties brought him in frequent contact with me as Minister of Economics. I believe this will suffice to gauge the capacity of Mr. Messersmith’s memory correctly.

DR. DIX: In a similar connection, the Prosecution repeatedly referred to the diary of the former ambassador in Berlin, Mr. Dodd, which was published on the basis of his private notes by his children after his death. This document has the Document Number EC-461. The Prosecution quotes from this diary repeatedly to prove that Mr. Dodd, too, considered you a warmonger. I know, of course, that you were a friend of Mr. Dodd’s, a fact which is shown in his diary. Can you tell me how the two facts can be reconciled?

SCHACHT: First of all, I might say that Ambassador Dodd was one of the most undefiled personalities I have met, an upright character, a man of unflinching fidelity to his convictions. He was a professor of history, undoubtedly a good historian. He had studied at German universities. I believe that he would turn in his grave if he could know that the notes which he put down casually in his diary were put together by his two children without commentary and printed without investigation.

Mr. Dodd, I am sorry to say, had one characteristic which made dealing with him a little difficult. I think the reason for this lay in his steadfastness of conviction, which from the first often made him appear averse to outside influence. He found it rather hard to make himself understood easily and fluently, and he was even less in a position to view opinions of others in the right light. Many things that were told him he misunderstood and saw in a wrong light.

On Page 176 in his diary, in the lower part, there is one sentence I would like to quote to illustrate the point I am trying to make. Here he says: “I talked fifteen minutes with Phipps”—the British Ambassador at that time—“about the accumulated evidence of Germany’s intense war activities.” This statement dates from the autumn of 1934 and I believe no one is able to say that in the autumn of 1934 there was any talk of a war activity on the part of Germany. Mr. Dodd uses the expression “war” undoubtedly in the place of “armament”; he says “Krieg” instead of “Aufrüstung.” In that sense, I believe he misunderstood the words.

And, as further evidence for the difficulty which one had in making the Ambassador understand, I might say that the Foreign Office asked him once to bring a secretary who would take notes of discussions with representatives of the Foreign Office, so that misunderstandings could be avoided.

I believe, therefore, that all these statements by Mr. Dodd are apt to be misunderstood. As for myself I can only say what I have already said about Mr. Messersmith, that of course I never talked about war intentions.

DR. DIX: Now, in this diary it says that he was favorably disposed towards you. Do you have any proof for this friendly attitude to you?

SCHACHT: May I perhaps refer to the correspondence with Henderson...

DR. DIX: Yes, we can deal with that later.

SCHACHT: Then I shall just confine myself to your question. Dodd was entirely friendly to me, and I respected him deeply. I saw a sign of his friendship in that shortly before his departure from Berlin in December of 1937 he visited me at my home, and this incident is also dealt with in his diary, and I would like to quote just one sentence: “I went to Dr. Schacht’s house in Dahlem. I wished especially to see Schacht, whose life is said to be in danger.”

In other words, Mr. Dodd had heard of an imminent attack on my life on the part of National Socialists, and considered it important enough and a reason for coming to my home personally in order to warn me.

A second piece of evidence of his friendship towards me can be seen from the final visit he paid me just a few days before returning to America. At that time he again called on me and told me urgently that I should go to America with him, or as soon after him as possible, that I should change my residence to America, and that I would find a pleasant welcome there. I believe he would never have said that to me had he not felt a certain degree of friendship for me.

DR. DIX: These are express services of friendship, and it can hardly be assumed that the deceased Ambassador would have done you these good services if he had considered you a warmonger and friend of the Nazis, and especially—and I would like to say this to the High Tribunal—if one remembers that Mr. Dodd was one of the few accredited diplomats in Berlin who very obviously had no sympathy of any sort for the regime in power, in fact he was wholly and fully opposed to it.

I intentionally say “the few diplomats” and, Dr. Schacht, I would like you to define your opinion on what I am saying. You will remember that those diplomats who kept aloof from Hitler’s regime politically and socially, such as the Dutch Minister, the magnificent grand seigneur Limburg-Stirum, or the Minister from Finland, the true-hearted and great Social Democrat, Wuolijoki, that most of these diplomats were recalled by their Governments. How is it that an opponent of the Nazis like Dodd did such open services of friendship to someone whom he considered a friend of the Nazis? Do you agree with my opinion?

SCHACHT: Yes. I am entirely of the same opinion.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I certainly object to going into this kind of sermonizing back and forth between the box and the bar. It seems to me that the witness has been allowed to say everything that Mr. Dodd has ever written and to put in his mind what he thinks Dodd meant. He has allowed him to go to great lengths characterizing all American representatives, but it seems to me that this is utterly off the track and improper for this witness to give a characterization of him in comparison with other ambassadors and other diplomatic representatives.

There is no request here for information about facts. I reiterate, we are not accusing Dr. Schacht here because of his opinions. We are accusing him because of very specific facts which there seems great reluctance to get to and deal with.

THE PRESIDENT: I think you should go on, Dr. Dix, and pass from this part of it, pass on from these documents.

DR. DIX: Perhaps I might mention very briefly that it is entirely far from me or from Dr. Schacht to feel impelled to express here our opinions on political or diplomatic personalities, but, on the other hand, if the Prosecution produces affidavits or diaries of these diplomats and uses these documents as pieces of evidence against the defendant in this proceeding, the defendant...

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that if you would put questions and put them shortly, it would be much better, and we should get on much faster.

DR. DIX: Yes. In general I have put brief questions, Your Lordship. I only said this now, because I would like to follow the procedure approved, I believe, by the High Tribunal, of dealing with part of the evidence at this stage; and so I would like to bring up the reliability of Dodd’s Diary. That is Document Schacht-43 in my document book; German text, Page 194; English text, Page 202. Here we are concerned with the correspondence between the publisher of Dodd’s diary and Sir Nevile Henderson, which deals with several misstatements in the diary. I will dispense with the rather long letter by Sir Nevile Henderson—there are five folio pages—and will cite just a few sentences.

On Page 196 of the German text, Sir Nevile Henderson writes:

“Take, for instance, the first statement attributed to me about Neurath. It is entirely impossible, that I, in front of Hitler...”

and so on and so forth.

Then on the same page, in the middle of the page, next paragraph:

“And it is the same with the general discussion. It is quite inconceivable that I should have spoken, as there recorded, about Bismarck and the annexation of Czechoslovakia and other countries.”

And on the same page, a little further down, next to the last paragraph, it says:

“Nor could I possibly have said that ‘Germany must dominate the Danube-Balkan zone.’”

And on the next page, second paragraph:

“The remark attributed to me that England and Germany ‘must control the world’ is pure balderdash and hardly fits in with the preceding sentence about the United States.”

Now, there are other similar passages on this and the following page, but I do not believe it necessary for me to quote them. I request the High Tribunal to take official notice of this document in its entirety, and I would like to submit it as such.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Dr. Schacht, a little while ago you mentioned a warning on the part of Ambassador Dodd with regard to a danger which was threatening you. Was it an attack on your life?

SCHACHT: At that time—and I only heard about this in January after Mr. Dodd told me—I was informed that the SS was planning an attack on my person. The intent was, as the technical expression then had it, “to remove” me. Something like that must have been in the air; otherwise, a foreign ambassador and the circles close to me would not have known about it.

DR. DIX: Just a little while ago you set forth how your policy rejected the use of arms in bringing about equality of German rights and means of livelihood. Did you try to do anything in a practical way to further your policy of peaceful agreement with foreign countries, for example, when you were President of the bank?

SCHACHT: My entire work as President of the Reichsbank was primarily based on the principle of working with the banks in foreign countries as harmoniously as possible, of pursuing a policy of mutual assistance and support.

Secondly, I tried to enter into personal, friendly relations with the directors of all these banks in the hope of meeting understanding for German problems, and thus of contributing to a solution by way of co-operation and mutual solution of these difficult problems which had arisen in Central Europe. The word “co-operation” (Zusammenarbeit) was the leitmotif of our circle.

DR. DIX: To turn from the directors of the banks, what about your foreign creditors?

SCHACHT: As I already said a little while ago, from the start I was in disfavor with all the money makers, those people who had profited from German loans in foreign countries for I was against Germany’s being involved in debts abroad, and I took my stand very firmly on this point.

Then later, after the misfortune which I had always predicted actually did come to pass, after the financial crash in the year 1931, these self-same financiers and money men blamed me for the fact that the interest on their money was no longer being transferred to them. Therefore in those circles I did not gain any friends, but among serious bankers and large banking institutions which were interested in constant and regulated business with Germany, I believe I made no enemies, because all measures which I later had to take in order to protect the German currency and to maintain Germany’s foreign trade, all these measures I always discussed jointly with the representatives of foreign creditors. Approximately every six months we met, and I always gave them a detailed account of German conditions. They were permitted to look into the books of the Reichsbank. They could examine and interrogate the officials of the Reichsbank and they always confirmed that I told them everything in the most frank and open manner. So that I may say that I worked in a fair and friendly way also with these men.

DR. DIX: And how did your policy of peaceful agreement affect foreign trade, export, credit, and so forth?

SCHACHT: I believe that after the happenings that have now taken place it is today even clearer than before that Germany cannot and could not live without foreign trade, and that the maintenance of export trade must be the basis for the future existence of the German nation. Consequently, I did everything in order to maintain German foreign trade. I can cite a few specific examples to supplement the general principles. I tried, for example, to do business with China in order that we might export to China. I was ready to give China credit and did. I hailed the fact that the Soviet Union kept up an extensive flow of trade with us, and I always advocated expanding and stabilizing this foreign trade in the case of Russia as well as China. About the ability and readiness to pay and the promptness of payment of the opposite parties I never had any doubts.

THE PRESIDENT: He is going into unnecessary detail in support of the allegation that he tried to maintain export trade. We do not surely need details.

DR. DIX: As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, this exposition is of great significance and relevance. It shows Schacht contrary and in opposition to the policy carried out by Hitler. Hitler was hostile to the Soviet Union and this hostility is counterbalanced by open friendliness on the part of and in the person of the Minister of Economics. If I want to prove that Schacht was pioneer of a policy of understanding between nations, even in phases where Hitler carried on a peaceful battle, so to speak, with another country, such as the war of propaganda against the Soviet Union, then, in my opinion, this point is very important for Schacht’s fundamental attitude—on one side war and on the other understanding. This is of absolute relevance.

THE PRESIDENT: The defendant has made the allegation. It is for the Prosecution to dispute it in cross-examination and if they do, then the details might become material in re-examination.

DR. DIX: I believe the question has been answered, and now I shall turn to an entirely new phase of questioning.

Since it is typical of his desire for understanding and his direct basic opposition to the policy of Hitler, I would like to refer to Document Number Schacht-34, which is an affidavit, of Schniewind, the banker and Swedish Consul General at Munich. This is Exhibit 34, Page 114, of the English translation, and I would like to quote a short paragraph on Page 112 of the German text, which confirms Dr. Schacht’s remarks. Schniewind, who was a high official in the Ministry of Economics, says here:

“My department dealt with the Reich guarantees for deliveries to Russia, and thus I was in position to know that Schacht considered Hitler wrong in fighting Russia. Through much effort, he obtained Hitler’s permission to send extensive supplies, especially machines to Russia. Frequently I gained the impression that Herr Schacht favored these deliveries because, while instrumental in giving employment, they did not benefit rearmament. Herr Schacht on several public occasions pointed out with satisfaction that trade shipments to Russia were proceeding promptly and smoothly.”

There are just a few more minutes before the customary recess, Your Honor, and before we take our recess, I ask that I be permitted to reply shortly to Your Lordship’s remarks of a few minutes ago. The defendant must conduct what is, to a certain degree, a very difficult defense. The Prosecution very simply argued: “You helped to finance rearmament and this rearmament in the final analysis ended in war and not only a war but a war of aggression; therefore, you as a defendant are either a conspirator or an accomplice, and that is a war crime.”

As far as this argument is concerned, it must in my opinion be open to the defendant, first—and we shall deal with that later—to point out that rearmament as such by no means constitutes a desire for aggressive war; and secondly, to show that his acts actually indicate the exact opposite, namely, his desire for concord and peace; and for these fundamental reasons, I do beg the Tribunal not to cut me short in this evidence but rather to give me the time to carry it through in detail. This explains my desire to set forth Schacht’s policy toward the Soviet Union, a policy in which he was in direct opposition to Hitler, to bring it forth in its entirety, and also my wish to show that he worked for agreement on all levels—with directors of banks and credit furnishers—that is, he advocated a policy of give and take rather than one of unilateral terrorizing and strife.

Gentlemen of the Bench, it is chiefly on a psychological plane on which I have to conduct the defense; that is a very sensitive and delicate field, and I again ask that my task may not be made more difficult. Then, when the witnesses are called, I for my part will most likely dispense with every witness except one, and I beg that you show me some consideration. Does Your Lordship consider it time for a recess?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, Dr. Dix. I thought that the Tribunal has shown you every consideration, and we will now certainly have a recess.

[_A recess was taken._]

DR. DIX: Dr. Schacht, what was your attitude toward the Leadership Principle? Did you not realize the danger of giving a blank check, the danger of losing your own capacity of responsibility? You have heard that Sir David considers the Leadership Principle in itself to be criminal.

SCHACHT: As to whether the Leadership Principle is criminal or not, opinions throughout history have been much divided. If we look back through Roman history we see that from time to time in dire periods of distress a leader was selected to whom everyone else was subordinate. And if I read _Failure of a Mission_ by Henderson there, too, I find sentences in which he says:

“People in England sometimes forget and fail to realize that even dictators can be, up to a point, necessary for a period and even extremely beneficial for a nation.”

Another passage from the same book says:

“Dictatorships are not always evil.”

In other words, it depends on just what is attributed to a Führer, how much confidence one has in a Führer, and for how long a time. Of course, it is a sheer impossibility for someone to assume the leadership of a country without giving the nation from time to time an opportunity of saying whether it still wants to keep him as Führer or not. The election of Hitler as Führer was in itself no political mistake; in my opinion one could have introduced quite a number of precautionary limitations with a view to averting the danger you have mentioned. I regret to say that that was not done, and that was a great mistake. But perhaps one was entitled to rely on the fact that from time to time a referendum, a plebiscite, a new expression of the will of the people would take place by which the Führer could have been corrected, because a leader who cannot be corrected becomes a menace. I recognized that danger very well, I was afraid of it, and I attempted to meet it. May I say one more thing? Limitless Party propaganda attempted to introduce the idea of a Führer as a lasting principle into politics. That of course is utter nonsense, and I took the opportunity—I always took such opportunity whenever it was possible—of expressing my dissenting opinions publicly. I took the opportunity in an address to the Academy of German Law, of which not only Nazis but lawyers of all groups were members, and in that speech I lectured about the Leadership Principle in economics. And I expressed myself ironically and satirically, as unfortunately is my wont, and said that it was not necessary to have a leader in every stocking factory, that in fact, this principle was not a principle at all, but an exceptional rule which had to be handled very carefully.

DR. DIX: I know that, because I was present on the occasion of that address. What did you think about the ideology of the master race (Herrenvolk)?

SCHACHT: I have always considered it a very unhappy precedent to speak of a “chosen people,” or of “God’s own country,” or of things like that. As a convinced adherent to the Christian faith I believe in Christian charity, which bids me extend love to all men without regard to race or faith. I would like to mention also that the silly talk about the master race, which some Party leaders made their own, was held up to constant ridicule by the German public. That was not surprising, because most of the leaders of the Hitler Party were not exactly ideal types of the Nordic race. And in that connection, when these things were discussed among the German population, little Goebbels was referred to as “Der Schrumpfgermane”—the shrivelled Teuton.

Only one thing—I have to say this to be just—did most of the leaders of the Party have in common with the old Teutons—and that was drinking; excessive drinking was a main part of the Nazi ideology.

DR. DIX: What did you think of the so-called National Socialist Weltanschauung?

SCHACHT: Weltanschauung in my opinion is a summation of all those moral principles which enable me to acquire a clear judgment on all aspects of life. Therefore it is a matter of course that a Weltanschauung cannot take root in the tangible world, but must rise above it; it is something metaphysical, that is to say, it is based on faith, on religion. A Weltanschauung which is not rooted in religion is in my opinion no Weltanschauung at all. Consequently I reject the National Socialist Weltanschauung which was not rooted in religion.

DR. DIX: In the trial brief against you it is expressly stated that there are no charges against you with regard to the Jewish question. Nevertheless I am putting to you a few questions on this topic, because the trial brief by its very words takes from you what in the Jewish question it conceded you; that is to say, the trial brief accuses you repeatedly of Nazi ideology, in which strict observance of anti-Semitism is integral.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I simply cannot be bound by silence after this flagrant misstatement of our position made in conjunction with this witness’ testimony. It is not true that we make no charges against Dr. Schacht with reference to the Jews. What is true is that we say that he was not in complete sympathy with that aspect of the Nazi program which involved a wholesale extermination of the Jews, and he was for that reason attacked from time to time. It is further conceded that he gave aid and comfort to individual Jews, but we do charge that he believed the Jews of Germany should be stripped of their rights as citizens, and that he aided and participated in their persecution. And I do not like to have our position misstated and then be met with a claim of estoppel by silence.

DR. DIX: I have to thank you, Mr. Justice Jackson, for your clarifying statement, and it is now all the more necessary that I put in questions to Dr. Schacht, but at this moment I want to point out...

THE PRESIDENT: Please put it then.

DR. DIX: Your Lordship, it is not only a question, but it is a problem, and I should like to ask the Prosecution to clarify it now, because it still needs clarification even after the statement of Mr. Justice Jackson. If the Tribunal do not think that this is the opportune time I can bring it up later. I believe, however, that it would be right to bring it up how.

As I see it, there is a contradiction in the Indictment, and I would like it clarified, so that we shall not be at cross-purposes in our final speeches.

I can put it quite briefly. It is the question of whether Dr. Schacht is accused also of Crimes against Humanity, that is, not only the crime of conspiracy concerning the war of aggression, but also the typical crimes against humanity, for on this point the individual passages, both of the Indictment and of the Prosecution speech in which the charges were presented, are at variance. I wanted to take the liberty of pointing out the contradictory passages and to ask the Prosecution to be kind enough to state conclusively at some future occasion whether Schacht is accused also on Count Three and Four of the Indictment. In presenting the charges the Prosecution stated, and that indicates that the Prosecution will limit itself to Counts One and Two:

“Our evidence against the Defendant Schacht is limited to the planning and preparation of aggressive war and his participation in the conspiracy for aggressive war.”

Similar statements are on Page 3 of the trial brief. Also, in Appendix A of the Indictment the charges against Schacht are limited to Counts One and Two. However, on Page 1 of the Indictment we find the following:

“...accuse as guilty...of Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity, and of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit those Crimes....”

And then all the defendants are listed, including the Defendant Hjalmar Schacht.

On Page 17 of the German text of the Indictment we read:

“On the basis of the facts previously stated, the defendants”—that is, all the defendants—“are guilty.”

That is, all the defendants are guilty of Counts One, Two, Three, Four. It also states, on Page 18 of the Indictment:

“All defendants committed, from 1 September 1939 to 8 May 1945, War Crimes in Germany and in countries and territories occupied by German troops after 1 September 1939 and in Austria, Czechoslovakia, Italy, and on the high seas.”

On Page 46 it reads:

“During several years before the 8th of May 1945, all defendants committed Crimes against Humanity in Germany”

—and so forth.

Therefore, some parts of the oral presentation and of the Indictment show that the Prosecution limits its charges against Schacht to Counts One and Two, but other passages express beyond doubt that he is also accused of Crimes against Humanity.

I think it would be helpful—it need not be done immediately, but I wanted as a precaution to express it now—if at the proper time the Prosecution would state to what extent the charges apply to Schacht.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Your Honor, it will take only one moment to answer that, and I think the cross-examination—the examination should not proceed under any misapprehension.

At all times, and in all documents that I am aware of, the Defendant Schacht has been accused of being guilty of Count One.

Count One, as the statement of the offense, states:

“The Common Plan or Conspiracy embraced the commission of Crimes against Peace in that the defendants planned, prepared, and initiated wars of aggression... In the development and course of the Common Plan it came to embrace the commission of War Crimes, in that it contemplated, and the defendants determined upon, and carried out ruthless war...”

And that included also Crimes against Humanity.

Our contention is that, while the Defendant Schacht himself was not in the field perpetrating these individual atrocities, he is answerable for every offense committed by any of the defendants or their co-conspirators up to the time that he openly broke with this outfit with which he became associated.

That is our contention and Dr. Dix should conduct his examination on the assumption that every charge is a charge against Schacht up to the time that he openly, and on record so that somebody knew it, became separated from the company with which he chose to travel.

DR. DIX: It is probably my fault, but I still cannot see clearly. First, I do not know what date the Prosecution means when it admits that Schacht openly broke with the regime. I must, during my examination...

THE PRESIDENT: I think you must make up your own mind as to what time it was, the time at which he openly broke.

Are you not able to hear?

DR. DIX: I have to make up my mind now?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I think you had better go on with the evidence.

DR. DIX: All right. I can refer to the subject again later.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Well then, please do not make any statements of principle concerning the Jewish question, but tell the Tribunal, and give a few examples, of what your attitude was on the Jewish question.

SCHACHT: The Jewish question came up quite early, when, in 1933, a New York banker, the late James Meier, announced his intention to visit me. I went to Hitler at that time and told him, “Mr. James Meier, one of the most respected New York bankers and a great benefactor of his old home country, Germany, will come to visit me, and I intend to give a dinner in his honor. I assume that you have no objection.” He immediately said, in a very definite and pronounced manner, “Herr Schacht, you can do everything.” I assumed that he gave me absolute freedom to keep in contact with my Jewish friends, which I did. The dinner actually took place.

I only mention this because it was the first time the Jewish question was brought up between us. At every occasion I took a definite position on the Jewish question—and wherever possible, publicly—I have always looked for that opportunity.

I will give only two examples of that.

There was a branch of the Reichsbank in Amswalde in the Province of Brandenburg. The name of the manager of that branch office was one day posted up in one of the public _Stürmer_ boxes in his town, and termed a traitor to the people because his wife had bought 50 pfennings worth of ribbon or the like in a Jewish store. I at once approached the competent official at Amswalde and demanded the immediate removal of the placard and an immediate correction to the effect that the man was no traitor to the people. That was refused; whereupon, without asking anyone, I closed the Reichsbank branch at Amswalde. It took a number of weeks until, in the end, the Oberpräsident, who was of course also a Nazi boss, came to me and asked me to reopen the branch office. I told him, “As soon as they repudiate that affair publicly I shall reopen the branch office at Amswalde.” It took only a few days before the Oberpräsident and Gauleiter of Brandenburg, Grube, had the announcement made public in the Amswalde newspaper, in large print, and so I reopened the branch office in Amswalde. That is one example.

The second example has been mentioned briefly; I just want to sum it up once more because its effect was penetrating.

On the occasion of a Christmas celebration for the office messengers of the Reichsbank I referred to the pogrom of 9 November 1938, and I told the boys, in the presence of many—parents, Party leaders, and Party members—that I hoped they had nothing to do with these things, which should make every decent German blush with shame. But if they did they should leave the Reichsbank at once, because in an institution such as the Reichsbank, which was built up on good faith, there was no place for people who did not respect the property and life of others.

DR. DIX: May I interrupt you, Dr. Schacht, and point out to the Tribunal that in Document Number Schacht-34, which has been submitted and is an affidavit of Dr. Schniewind, on Page 118 of the German text and on Page 126 of the English text the same incident which Dr. Schacht has just related is mentioned. May I quote quite briefly:

“It is known that at the Christmas celebration of the Reichsbank in December of 1938 he”—that is Schacht—“said the following in his address to the young office boys:

“‘A few weeks ago things occurred in our fatherland which are a disgrace to civilization and which must turn every decent German’s face red with shame. I only hope that none of you office boys participated in them, because for such an individual there is no place in the Reichsbank.’”

[_Turning to the defendant._] Excuse me. Please continue. You wanted to add something?

SCHACHT: When in August of 1934 I took over the Reich Ministry of Economics, of course I first put the question to Hitler: “How are the Jews in our national economy to be treated?” Hitler told me then, literally, “The Jews can be active in domestic economy in the same way as before.”

That was the directive that Hitler had promised to me, and during all the time when I was in charge of the Ministry of Economics I acted accordingly.

However, I have to add that every few weeks there was a quarrel on some Jewish question with some Gauleiter or other Party official. Also, I could not protect Jews against physical mistreatment and the like, because that came under the competence of the Public Prosecutor and not mine; but in the economic field I helped all Jews who approached me to obtain their rights, and in every individual case, I prevailed upon Hitler and succeeded against the Gauleiters and Party officials, sometimes even threatening to resign.

I believe that it is notable that the pogrom of November 1938 could only have taken place after I had resigned from my office. Had I still been in office, then that pogrom doubtlessly would not have occurred.

DR. DIX: The witness Gisevius has already testified that in the course of developments from 1933 on, fundamental changes took place in your judgment of Adolf Hitler. I ask you now, because this is a very decisive question, to give the Tribunal a detailed description of your real attitude and your judgment of Adolf Hitler in the course of the years—as exhaustively, but also as briefly, as possible.

SCHACHT: In former statements which I have made here, I have spoken of Hitler as a semi-educated man. I still maintain that. He did not have sufficient school education, but he read an enormous amount later, and acquired a wide knowledge. He juggled with that knowledge in a masterly manner in all debates, discussions, and speeches.

No doubt he was a man of genius in certain respects. He had sudden ideas of which nobody else had thought and which were at times useful in solving great difficulties, sometimes with astounding simplicity, sometimes, however, with equally astounding brutality.

He was a mass psychologist of really diabolical genius. While I myself and several others—for instance, General Von Witzleben told me so once—while we were never captivated in personal conversations, still he had a very peculiar influence on other people, and particularly he was able—in spite of his screeching and occasionally breaking voice—to stir up the utmost overwhelming enthusiasm of large masses in a filled auditorium.

I believe that originally he was not filled only with evil desires; originally, no doubt, he believed he was aiming at good, but gradually he himself fell victim to the same spell which he exercised over the masses; because whoever ventures to seduce the masses is finally led and seduced by them, and so this reciprocal relation between leader and those led, in my opinion, contributed to ensnaring him in the evil ways of mass instincts, which every political leader should avoid.

One more thing was to be admired in Hitler. He was a man of unbending energy, of a will power which overcame all obstacles, and in my estimate only those two characteristics—mass psychology and his energy and will power—explain that Hitler was able to rally up to 40 percent, and later almost 50 percent, of the German people behind him.

What else shall I say?

DR. DIX: Well, I was mainly concerned with bringing up the subject of your own change of opinion. You have said that the break in your attitude toward Hitler was caused by the Fritsch incident. You are the best witness who can give us an explanation not of Hitler’s but of your own development and your changing attitude towards Hitler.

SCHACHT: Excuse me. I think there is a basic error here. It appears from this as if I had been a convinced adherent of Hitler at some time. I was never that. On the contrary, out of concern for my people and my country, after Hitler gained power, I endeavored with all my strength to direct that power into an orderly channel, and to keep it within bounds. Therefore, there was no question of a break with Hitler. A break could only be spoken of had I been closely connected with him before. At heart I was never closely connected with Hitler, but to all appearances I worked in the Cabinet and I did so because he was after all in power, and I considered it my duty to put myself at the disposal of my people and my country for their good.

DR. DIX: All right, but at what time, by what conditions, by what realization were you influenced to begin that activity which the witness Gisevius has described?

SCHACHT: My serious criticism of Hitler’s doings started already at the time of the so-called Röhm Putsch on 30 June 1934. I should like to point out first that these things occurred quite unexpectedly and took me by surprise, because I had not at all anticipated them. At that time I had told Hitler, “How could you have these people just simply killed off? Under all circumstances there should have been at least a summary trial of some sort.” Hitler swallowed these remarks and merely mumbled something about “revolutionary necessity,” but he did not really contradict me.

Then in the course of the second half of the year 1934 and the first half of the year 1935 I noticed that I had been under a misconception when I believed that Hitler did not approve of what might be considered revolutionary and disorderly Party excesses, and that he was really willing to restore a respectable atmosphere. Hitler did nothing to put a stop to the excesses of individual Party members or Party groups. Very likely the idea which recently—or I believe today—was mentioned by a witness was always in his mind: let the SA have its fling for once. That is to say, for the masses of the Party he sanctioned, as a means of recreation, so to speak, behavior which is absolutely incompatible with good order in the State. In the course of the following months my suspicions were confirmed and increased, and then for the first time, in May 1935, I took occasion to bring these matters up with him quite openly. I do not know if you want me to discuss these things now, but I am ready to tell about them.

DR. DIX: I consider it important that the Tribunal should hear from you how your original attitude towards Hitler, which you have just described, changed, and you became a conspirator against him.

SCHACHT: Well, the decisive change in my attitude came about by reason of the Fritsch incident, at the very moment when I had to recognize—and, of course, that did not come with lightning speed, but in the course of weeks and months it crystallized—that Hitler aimed at war, or at least was not prepared to do everything to avoid a war. At that moment I told myself that this was a tremendous danger which was raising its head, and that violence could be crushed only by violence.

Any opportunity of political propaganda within the German people was of course out of the question. There was no freedom of assembly. There was no freedom of speech. There was no freedom of writing. There was no possibility of discussing things even in a small group. From beginning to end one was spied upon, and every word which was said among more than two persons was spoken at the peril of one’s life. There was only one possibility in the face of that terror, which was beyond democratic reform and which barred every national criticism. That was to meet this situation with violence.

Then I came to the conclusion that in the face of Hitler’s terror only a _coup d’état_, a Putsch, and finally an attempt at assassination was possible.

DR. DIX: And is Gisevius right in saying that the _peripeteia_, the decisive turning point in your attitude resulted from your impressions and experiences in the so-called Fritsch crisis?

SCHACHT: Aside from the inherent falsehood which appeared in all actions and measures of the Party men, the Fritsch crisis provided the absolute assurance that a basic change was occurring in the conduct of political affairs, for within about 10 days Blomberg was removed, Fritsch was removed, Neurath was removed, and Hitler not only appointed so unsuitable a person as Ribbentrop to be Foreign Minister, but also in his speech in the Reichstag soon afterwards announced that from now on rearmament had to be increased even more. Consequently the Fritsch crisis was the decisive turning point in my attitude, and from then on I knew that every further peaceful attempt at controlling the torrent would fail and that only violent means could meet it.

DR. DIX: For an estimate of the Fritsch crisis may I quote now from the document which I already wanted to produce on the occasion of the interrogation of Gisevius but could not because the document was not then available to the Prosecution. The same view about the Fritsch crisis which Gisevius and now Dr. Schacht have put here was also expressed abroad by an intelligent officer with political foresight. May I point to Exhibit Number 15 of my document book (Document Number Schacht-15)? That is Page 41 of the English text, and 35 of the German text. It is a biennial report of the Chief of Staff of the United States Army to the Secretary of War for the period of 1 July 1943 to 30 June 1945. I quote one sentence from it:

“The history of the German High Command from 1938 on is one of constant conflict of personalities, in which military judgment was increasingly subordinated to Hitler’s personal dictates. The first clash occurred in 1938 and resulted in the removal of Von Blomberg, Von Fritsch, and Beck and of the last effective conservative influence on German foreign policy.”

So here also that turning point has been clearly understood. And in summary I would like to ask this question of Dr. Schacht.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Were you only disappointed by Hitler, or did you consider yourself deceived by Hitler at that time? Will you answer that?

SCHACHT: The answer is that I have never felt disappointed by Hitler, because I had not expected more of him than my appraisal of his personality allowed me. But I certainly consider myself deceived, swindled, and cheated by him to the highest degree, because whatever he had previously promised to the German people and thereby to me, he did not keep afterwards.

He promised equal rights for all citizens, but his adherents, regardless of their capabilities, enjoyed privileges before all other citizens. He promised to put the Jews under the same protection which foreigners enjoyed, yet he deprived them of every legal protection. He had promised to fight against political lies, but together with his Minister Goebbels he cultivated nothing but political lies and political fraud. He promised the German people to maintain the principles of positive Christianity yet he tolerated and sponsored measures by which institutions of the Church were abused, reviled, and damaged. Also, in the foreign political field he always spoke against a war on two fronts—and then later undertook it himself. He despised and disregarded all laws of the Weimar Republic, to which he had taken the oath when he became Chancellor. He mobilized the Gestapo against personal liberty. He gagged and bound all free exchange of ideas and information. He pardoned criminals and enlisted them in his service. He did everything to break his promises. He lied to and deceived the world, Germany, and me.

DR. DIX: Let us return to the period of the seizure of power. In November 1932, you stated publicly that Hitler would become Reich Chancellor. What caused you to make that statement?

SCHACHT: That statement was caused by the fact that Hitler in the July elections of 1932 obtained 40 percent of all seats in the Reichstag for his Party. That is an election result which, if I am informed correctly, had never occurred since 1871, when the Reichstag was founded; and to me, as a democrat and a follower of democratic parliamentary government, it was quite inevitable that that man was now to be entrusted with forming a cabinet. I do not know of any alternative at the time. There was only one other possibility, one alternative, and that was a military rule. But the Cabinet of Von Papen already had had some special presidential authority and still could not maintain itself in the face of the Reichstag; and when Herr Schleicher attempted to establish a military regime without the participation of the Nazis, he failed after just a few weeks, because he found himself confronted with the alternative either of starting a civil war or of resigning.

Hindenburg and at first Schleicher as well—although at the last moment he acted differently—were always of the opinion that the Armed Forces could not face a civil war, and Hindenburg was certainly not ready to tolerate a civil war. But very unwillingly he saw himself forced by necessity to put the reins of government into the hands of the man who, thanks to his own propaganda and the incapability of all preceding governments, thanks also to the inconsiderate policy of the foreign countries toward Germany, had won the majority of German votes.

DR. DIX: You know that the Prosecution accuses you of having assisted Hitler and the Nazi regime to power. I therefore want to ask you now whether between the July elections 1932, and the day when Hitler became Chancellor—that is the 30th of January, 1933—you spoke publicly for Hitler.

SCHACHT: I want to state first that Hitler’s power was an accomplished fact in July 1932, when he secured 230 Reichstag seats. Everything else that followed must be viewed as a consequence of that Reichstag election. During that entire period—with the exception of the one interview you mentioned, in which I said that according to democratic principles Hitler must become Reich Chancellor—I can say that I did not write or publicly speak a single word for Hitler.

DR. DIX: Did you, during the time when the reorganization of the Reich Cabinet was discussed, speak to Hindenburg on behalf of Hitler’s Chancellorship?

SCHACHT: I have never in consultations with any of the competent gentlemen, be it Hindenburg, Meissner, or anyone else, contributed towards exerting any influence in favor of Hitler, nor did I participate in any way in the nomination of Hitler to be Reich Chancellor.

DR. DIX: The prosecutor accuses you in that connection of putting the prestige of your name at the disposal of Hitler in November 1932, and he refers to a statement made by Goebbels in the latter’s book, _From the Kaiserhof to the Reich Chancellery_. What can you say about that?

SCHACHT: I would never have expected that this apostle of truth, Goebbels, would once more be mobilized against me here, but it is not my fault if Herr Goebbels made a mistake.

DR. DIX: The prosecutor also states that you provided the funds for Hitler in the Reichstag elections of 5 March; that is said to have happened in an industrial meeting on which there is an affidavit by the industrialist Von Schnitzler, Document Number EC-439, Exhibit USA-618. What do you have to say about that? It is our Number 3 of our document book, Page 11 of the English copy.

SCHACHT: In February of 1933, at the time when Hitler was already Reich Chancellor and the elections of 5 March were to furnish a basis for the shape of the new government, Hitler asked me whether, at the occasion of a meeting which Göring was to call and which would have the purpose of raising funds for the elections, I would be good enough to take the role of his banker. I had no reason for refusing to do that. The meeting took place on 26 February.

And now the prosecutor has made it appear that during that meeting I had solicited election funds. The Prosecution themselves, however, have presented a document, D-203, which apparently is meant to be a record of the election speech made by Hitler on that evening...

DR. DIX: May I interrupt you and point out to the Tribunal that it is our Exhibit Number Schacht-2, on Page 9 of the English text. Excuse me. Please, will you kindly go on.

SCHACHT: D-203. That document closes with the following sentence:

“Göring then passed very cleverly to the necessity that other circles not taking part in this political battle should at least make the financial sacrifices required.”

Therefore from that report which was submitted by the Prosecution, it can be seen very clearly that not I but Göring pleaded for funds. I only administered these funds later, and, in the affidavit by Schnitzler, Document EC-439, Page 11, the Prosecution have carefully left out these decisive passages which do not accuse, but exonerate me. I quote the two sentences, therefore, as follows—I am sorry, I have to quote in English because I have only the English text in front of me:

“At the meeting Dr. Schacht proposed raising an election fund of as far as I remember three million Reichsmarks. The fund was to be distributed between the two ‘allies’ according to their relative strength at the time. Dr. Stein suggested that the Deutsche Volkspartei should be included, which suggestion, if I remember rightly, was accepted. The amounts which the individual firms were to contribute were not discussed.”

It can be seen from this that the election fund was not collected only for the Nazi Party, but for the Nazi Party and the national group which was its ally and to which, for instance, also Herr Von Papen and Hugenberg belonged, and which during that very meeting was extended to comprise a third group, the German People’s Party. It was, therefore, a collective fund for those parties who went into the election campaign together, and not just a Nazi fund.

DR. DIX: The Prosecution have mentioned those laws which were decreed after the seizure of power, and which introduced and then established the totalitarian rule of the Nazis and of Hitler. We have to consider the question of your personal responsibility as a later member of the cabinet and I must discuss these laws with you in detail; for the present I just want to remind you of them generally: First, the Enabling Act; then the law about the prohibition of parties and the establishment of one Party; the law about the unity of Party and State; the law decreeing the expropriation of the SPD and the trade unions; the law about civil service associations; the law about the legal limitation of professions for Jews; the law instituting the Peoples’ Court; the law legalizing the murders of 30 June 1934; and the law about the merger of the offices of the Reich Chancellor and the Reich President in the person of Hitler. How do you, as a member of the Cabinet, define your personal responsibility with respect to these laws?

SCHACHT: When all these laws were issued I was not a Cabinet member. I had no vote in the Cabinet. I had a vote in the Cabinet only after 1 August 1934, at which time the last disastrous law, the merger of the offices of Reich Chancellor and Reich President was decreed. I did not participate in the discussions preceding this law, nor did I vote on it. I had absolutely no part in any of these laws.

DR. DIX: I do not know whether I mentioned it, but I want to protect you against a misunderstanding. This does not apply to the merger of the offices of the Reich President in the person of Hitler, after Hindenburg’s death?

SCHACHT: Of course, I did not take part in that either.

DR. DIX: And why not?

SCHACHT: Because I was not then in the Cabinet. I received my official nomination as Minister on 3 or 4 August. I did not take part in the deliberations on that law. I did not vote for it, and did not sign it.

DR. DIX: But in the Indictment it is stated that you were a member of the Reichstag. Then as a member of the Reichstag you would have voted for these laws, inasmuch as, actually, after 1933 only unanimous votes were cast in the Reichstag?

SCHACHT: Yes. Unfortunately, there is much in the trial brief which is not correct. During my entire life I was never a member of the Reichstag. One look into the _Reichstag Handbook_ could have enlightened the Prosecution that also during that time I was not a member of the Reichstag.

I had nothing to do with all these laws either as member of the Cabinet or of the Reichstag, because I had been neither during that time.

DR. DIX: Did Adolf Hitler actually take an oath to the Weimar Constitution?

SCHACHT: Of course Hitler took an oath to the Weimar Constitution when he became Reich Chancellor, to Reich President Von Hindenburg. In taking that oath he swore not only to respect the constitution but also to observe and fulfill all laws unless they were lawfully changed.

DR. DIX: Was the Weimar Constitution ever formally repealed?

SCHACHT: No, the Weimar Constitution has never been repealed.

DR. DIX: In your view was the Leadership Principle established anywhere legally or constitutionally?

SCHACHT: The Leadership Principle was not established by a single law, and the subsequent attempt to reduce the responsibility of the individual ministers—and that affects me, too—by saying that it had become prescriptive law, is not correct. The responsibility of the ministers continued to exist, my own also, and was kept down only by the terror and the violent threats of Hitler.

DR. DIX: The questions whether the Enabling Act referred to the Führer or to the Cabinet; whether the first Cabinet after 1933 was a National Socialist one or a combination of the parties of the right; and the question of the development of Hitler into an autocratic dictator, all these I have already put to the witness Lammers. I do not wish to repeat them, but do you have to add anything new to what Lammers has testified?

SCHACHT: I made only two notes. In Hitler’s Reichstag speech on 23 March 1933 he said, “It is the sincere desire of the National Government...”—not the National Socialist, as it is always referred to later, but the National Government.

And the second point: In the proclamation to the Wehrmacht which Defense Minister Von Blomberg issued on 1 February 1933 this sentence occurs:

“I assume this office with the firm determination to maintain the Reichswehr, in accordance with the testament of my predecessors, as a power factor of the State, above Party politics.”

This and other factors already mentioned convinced me that the Cabinet would be a national coalition cabinet, whereas Hitler, by his rule of terror and violence, formed a pure Nazi dictatorship out of it.

DR. DIX: The quotation mentioned by Schacht is in our document book, Document Number Schacht-4, Page 14 of the English text. Now, when you became Minister of Economics...

THE PRESIDENT: It is 5 o’clock; the Tribunal will adjourn.

DR. DIX: Mr. President, may I ask a question? Do we continue tomorrow, because tomorrow is the first of May, and there is some uncertainty whether there will be a session tomorrow or not?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Tribunal will go on tomorrow.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 1 May 1946 at 1000 hours._]

ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTEENTH DAY Wednesday, 1 May 1946

_Morning Session_

THE PRESIDENT: Before we go on with the case of the Defendant Schacht, the Tribunal wishes to announce its decision on the applications by Dr. Sauter on behalf of the Defendant Von Schirach: The first application to which any objection was taken related to the group of documents Numbers 30, 31, 45, 68, 73, 101, 124, and 133. That application with respect to that group of documents is denied.

The next matter was an application in respect of Number 118(a). That application is granted and the document is to be translated.

The next was Number 121 and in that case the application is denied. As regard to witnesses, Dr. Sauter withdrew his application for the witness Marsalek.

In connection with the other applications, the Tribunal grants the application that Uiberreither should be called as a witness.

That is all.

DR. DIX: Yesterday, much to my regret, I neglected after an answer given by Dr. Schacht to my question as to whether he was disappointed by Hitler or whether he considered himself deceived by him, to read a passage from a document which deals with the same point. I am referring to a document which has been submitted to the High Tribunal and which has been quoted several times—Exhibit Schacht-34, Page 114 of the English text of the document book. This passage may be found on Page 124 of the English document book and reads as follows:

“Dr. Schacht, even in the years 1935-36, as may have been seen from numerous statements, had fallen into the role of a man, who in good faith had put his strength and ability at Hitler’s disposal but who now felt himself betrayed.

“Of the many statements made by Schacht, I quote only one which Schacht made at the occasion of a supper with my wife and myself in the summer of 1938. When Dr. Schacht made his appearance, it was evident that he was in a state of inner excitement and during the supper, he suddenly gave vent to his feelings, when, in deep agitation he almost shouted at my wife, ‘My dear lady, we have fallen into the hands of criminals—how could I ever have suspected that?’”

This is the affidavit made out by Schniewind.

Yesterday I mentioned three documents: namely, a speech made by Schacht on “Geography and Statistics” at Frankfurt-am-Main on 9 December 1936, then an article Schacht had written on the colonial problem and a speech given at Königsberg by Schacht.

I wish to submit these documents: The speech on “Geography and Statistics” at Frankfurt is the Document Schacht-19, Page 48, English Page 54. The theme on the colonial question is Exhibit Schacht-21, German version Page 53 and English version Page 59. The speech at Königsberg is Exhibit Schacht-25 of my document book, German version on Page 44 and English version Page 73.

Dr. Schacht, we stopped in the middle of 1934, shortly before you entered the Ministry of Economics, and when you became Minister of Economics, you were familiar with the happenings of 30 June 1934 and their legalization by the Cabinet. Did you not have any misgivings to enter the Cabinet or what reasons prompted you to put aside these misgivings?

SCHACHT: As far as my personal composure and comfort would have been concerned, it would have been very simple not to assume office and to resign. Of course, I asked myself what help that would be for the future development of German politics if I did refuse office. We were already at a stage in which any public and open opposition and criticism against the Hitler regime had been made impossible. Meetings could not be held, societies could not be established, every press statement was subject to censorship, and all political opposition, without which no government can thrive, had been prevented by Hitler through his policy of terror. There was only one possible way to exercise criticism and even form an opposition which could prevent bad and faulty measures being taken by the Government. And this opposition could solely be formed in the Government itself. Thus convinced, I entered the Government and I hoped in the course of the years to find a certain amount of support and backing among the German people. There was still a large mass of spiritual leaders, professors, scientists, and teachers, whom I did not expect simply to acquiesce to a regime of coercion. There were also many industrialists, leaders of economy, who I did not assume would bow to a policy of coercion incompatible with free economy. I expected a certain support from all these circles, support which would make it possible for me to have a moderating, controlling influence in the Government. Therefore, I entered Hitler’s Cabinet, not with enthusiastic assent, but because it was necessary to keep on working for the German people and exercise a moderating influence within the Government.

DR. DIX: In the course of time was no opposition ever developed within the Party?

SCHACHT: In answering that question, I would like to say that within the Party, of course, the decent elements were by far in majority; the greater part of the population had joined the Party because of a healthy instinct and with good intentions driven by the need in which the German nation found itself.

I would like to say about the SS, for instance, that in the beginning numbers of decent people joined the SS because Himmler gave the SS the appearance of fighting for a life of ideals. I would like to call your attention to a book written by an SS man which appeared at that time under the significant title, _Schafft anständige Kerle_ (_Let’s Make Decent Men_).

But, in the course of time, Hitler knew how to gather around him all bad elements, within the Party and its organization, and to chain tightly all those elements to himself, because he understood how to exploit shrewdly any mistake, slip-up, or misdemeanor on their part. Yesterday I talked about drunkenness as a constituent part of Nazi ideology; I did not do that with the purpose of degrading anyone personally. I did it for another quite definite reason.

In the course of further developments, I observed that even many Party members who had fallen into this net of Hitler and who occupied more or less leading positions, gradually became afraid because of the consequences of the injustices and the evil deeds to which they were instigated by the regime. I had the definite feeling that these people resorted to alcohol and various narcotics in order to flee from their own conscience, and that it was only this flight from their own conscience that permitted them to act the way they did. Otherwise, there would be no explanation for the large number of suicides that took place at the end of the Nazi regime.

DR. DIX: You know that you are accused of being a participant in a conspiracy which had as its object an illegal violation of the peace. Did you at any time have secret discussions, or secret orders, or secret directives, which worked toward this objective?

SCHACHT: I may say that I myself never received any order or fulfilled any wish which might have been contrary to the conception of right. Never did Hitler request anything from me which he knew I would surely not carry out because it did not agree with my moral point of view. But neither did I ever notice or observe that one of my fellow ministers or one of the other leading men who did not belong to Hitler’s inner circle—of course, I could not control that circle—or anyone else whom I met in official contacts, showed in any way that there was an intent to commit a war crime; on the contrary, we were always very glad when Hitler came off with one of his big speeches in which he assured, not only the entire world, but above all the German people that he was thinking of nothing except peace and peaceful work. The fact that Hitler deceived the world and the German people, and many of his co-workers, is one of the things that I mentioned yesterday.

DR. DIX: Did you at any time—of course, I mean outside of your normal oath of office—take any oath or bind yourself in any other way to the Party or another National Socialist organization?

SCHACHT: Not a single oath and not a single obligation beyond my oath of office to the head of the State.

DR. DIX: Did you have close private relations with leading National Socialists, for example, with Hitler or Göring?

SCHACHT: I assume you mean a close friendly or social contact?

DR. DIX: Yes.

SCHACHT: I never had relations of that sort with Hitler. He repeatedly urged me in the first years to come to the luncheons at the Reich Chancellery where he was lunching with closer friends. I tried to do that twice. I attended twice at various intervals, and I must say that not only the level of the discussion at the luncheon and the abject humility shown to Hitler repulsed me but I also did not like the whole crowd, and I never went back again.

I never called on Hitler personally in a private matter. Of course, naturally, I attended the large public functions which all the ministers, the Diplomatic Corps and high officials, _et cetera_, attended, but I never had any intimate, social, or other close contact with him. That applies to the other gentlemen as well.

As a matter of course, in the first months of our acquaintance we visited each other on occasion, but all so-called social gatherings which still took place in the first period had a more or less official character. Close private relations simply did not exist.

DR. DIX: And does this answer apply to all the other leading National Socialists as well?

SCHACHT: All of them.

DR. DIX: When, for instance, did you speak for the last time with the following persons? Let us start first with Bormann.

SCHACHT: I gather from the use of the word “first” that you are going to mention others also.

DR. DIX: Yes, Himmler, Hess, Ley, and Ribbentrop.

SCHACHT: In that case I would like to make a few preliminary remarks: At the close of the French campaign, when Hitler returned triumphant and victorious from Paris, all of us—the ministers and the Reichsleiter and the other dignitaries of the Party as I assume, and state secretaries, and so forth—received an invitation from the Reich Chancellery to be present at the Anhalter Railway Station to greet Hitler on his arrival. Since I was in Berlin at the time, it was impossible for me to refuse this invitation. It was 1940, the conflict between Hitler and myself had been going on for some time, and it would have been a veritable affront if I had stayed at home. Consequently, I went to the station and saw a very large number of Party dignitaries, ministers and so forth, but, of course, I do not remember any more just who all these people were.

DR. DIX: I beg your pardon for interrupting you. I have a rather poor memory for films and especially for newsreels, but I believe that that reception was shown in a newsreel and I believe that you were just about the only civilian who was present among those people.

SCHACHT: I personally did not see that film, but my friends told me about it. They mentioned especially that among all the gold braid, I was the only civilian in street clothes there. Of course, it could be ascertained from the film who was present at the time.

I mentioned this reception, for it might be possible that I said “Good morning” to many people and inquired about their health and so forth, and I also recall that I arrived at the station with the Codefendant Rosenberg in the same car, because there were always two people to a car. I did not attend the reception which followed at the Reich Chancellery. Rosenberg did go but I said, “No, I would rather not go. I am going home.”

DR. DIX: Then, I may assume that you probably saw the leading men, Hess, Ley, Ribbentrop, Rosenberg, Frick, Frank, Schirach, Speer, Sauckel, Seyss-Inquart, Kaltenbrunner, _et cetera_, then for the last time?

SCHACHT: It is possible that all these gentlemen were there, but I did not speak at length with any of them except Hitler himself.

DR. DIX: Did you speak with Hitler at that time?

SCHACHT: Hitler addressed me, and that was one of the strangest scenes of my life. We were all standing in line and Hitler passed everyone by rather quickly. When he saw me, he came up to me with a triumphant smile and extended his hand in a cordial manner, something which I had not seen from him for a long time, and he said to me, “Now, Herr Schacht, what do you have to say now?” Then, of course, he expected me to congratulate him or express my admiration or a similar sentiment, and to admit that my prognostication about the war and about the disaster of the war was wrong, for he knew my attitude about the war quite exactly. It was extremely hard for me to avoid such an answer and I searched my mind for something else to say, finally replying: “I can only say to you, ‘God protect you.’” That was the only significant conversation which I had that day. I believed the best way to have kept my distance was through just such a completely neutral and inconsequential remark.

DR. DIX: Well...

SCHACHT: But perhaps you would like me to refer to the individual gentlemen, and I can tell you with this exception just when I spoke to these gentlemen for the last time.

DR. DIX: Himmler?

SCHACHT: Himmler, I would judge that perhaps I talked to him last in 1936.

DR. DIX: Hess?

SCHACHT: Hess—of course I am not referring to the conversations here in the prison. I had not spoken with Hess for years before the beginning of the war.

DR. DIX: Ley?

SCHACHT: Ley, I had not seen him since the beginning of the war.

DR. DIX: Ribbentrop?

SCHACHT: I saw Ribbentrop last after my being thrown out of the Reichsbank, because I had to talk with him about the imminent journey to India, and that must have been, I would judge, February 1939. I have not talked with him since.

DR. DIX: Rosenberg?

SCHACHT: Rosenberg, always aside from this reception of Hitler’s, perhaps not since 1936.

DR. DIX: Frick?

SCHACHT: I perhaps saw Frick last in the year 1938.

DR. DIX: Schirach?

SCHACHT: I did not even know Schirach.

DR. DIX: Speer?

SCHACHT: I talked with Speer for the last time—and I can tell you this exactly—when I went to the World Exposition in Paris in the year 1937.

DR. DIX: Of course, you are always referring to the time before you were taken prisoner?

SCHACHT: Yes, of course, naturally here I have...

DR. DIX: Sauckel?

SCHACHT: Not since the beginning of the war.

DR. DIX: Seyss-Inquart?

SCHACHT: Seyss-Inquart, I would judge that I spoke to him for the last time in 1936, when I visited a colleague in the National Bank in Austria.

DR. DIX: Kaltenbrunner?

SCHACHT: I saw Kaltenbrunner for the first time here at the prison.

DR. DIX: We will refer to Hitler later. Frank is still missing.

SCHACHT: I saw Frank last perhaps 1937 or 1938.

DR. DIX: Most likely at the occasion of the speech you mentioned yesterday?

SCHACHT: Yes, possibly also afterwards at an official reception, but I do not believe that I saw him after 1938.

DR. DIX: Now, how about the leading men of the Wehrmacht, Keitel, for instance?

SCHACHT: I never had any contact with Keitel. I perhaps saw him at some social gathering, but never after 1938.

DR. DIX: Jodl?

SCHACHT: I made Herr Jodl’s acquaintance here in the prison.

DR. DIX: Dönitz?

SCHACHT: I met Dönitz for the first time here in the prison.

DR. DIX: Raeder?

SCHACHT: Herr Raeder, I believe I have known him for quite some time. In the beginning we exchanged occasional visits within the family, visits of a semiofficial character but always on a friendly basis; however, I believe that I have also not seen him or talked to him since 1938.

DR. DIX: Brauchitsch?

SCHACHT: I have not talked with Brauchitsch since 1939, or since 1938, since the Fritsch affair.

DR. DIX: How about Halder?

SCHACHT: As you know, I saw Halder in connection with the Putsch in the fall of 1938 but not after that.

DR. DIX: How often did you see Hitler after your dismissal as President of the Reichsbank?

SCHACHT: After my dismissal as President of the Reichsbank?

DR. DIX: Since January 1939.

SCHACHT: I saw him once more in January 1939 because I had to discuss my future activity, _et cetera_, with him. And on that occasion he asked me—he knew that I had long wished to take an extensive journey—that I might avail myself of this opportunity to take this journey now, so there would not be so much talk about my leaving the Reichsbank. Then we agreed on the trip to India. On that occasion I also saw Göring for the last time. And then—after my return in August, I did not see him again—then the war came, during the course of which I saw him twice.

Shall I tell you about those two occasions?

DR. DIX: Yes.

SCHACHT: I saw him once in February 1940. At that time various American magazines and periodicals had requested me to write articles on Germany’s interpretation of the situation, her desires, and her position in general. I had the inclination to do this, but because we were at war, I naturally could not do so without first informing the Foreign Minister. The Foreign Minister advised me that he had nothing against my writing an article for an American periodical, but that before sending off this article, he wanted to have the article submitted for censorship. Of course that did not appeal to me—I had not even thought of that—and, consequently, I did not write this article.

However, there were further inquiries from America and I said to myself, “It is not sufficient for me to talk with the Foreign Minister, I must go to Hitler in this matter.” So, with that aim, I called on Hitler, who received me very soon after my request, and I told him at that time, among other things, just what my experience with Herr Von Ribbentrop had been, and I further told him that I thought it might be quite expedient to write these articles; and that it seemed vital to me to have constantly someone in America, who by means of the press, _et cetera_, could enlighten public opinion as to Germany and her interests.

Hitler was favorably impressed with this suggestion of mine and said to me, “I shall discuss this matter with the Foreign Minister.” Consequently, this entire matter came to naught.

Then, later, through the good offices of my Codefendant, Funk, who probably had a discussion at that time with Ribbentrop about this matter, I tried to get at least an answer from Ribbentrop. This answer, given to Funk, was to the effect that it was still too early for a step of that sort. And that was my visit in 1940. Then I saw Hitler again in February of 1941...

DR. DIX: Pardon my interruption. So that we can avoid all misunderstandings, if Hitler had given you permission that you could have gone to America, just what would your activities have been? Tell us very briefly. I want no misunderstanding.

SCHACHT: First of all, I had not proposed going myself; I rather made a general suggestion. But, naturally, I would have been very glad to go to America for I saw a possibility...

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not think it is material to know what he would have done if something had happened which did not happen.

DR. DIX: I just wanted to preclude any misunderstanding. I said that misunderstandings—Well let us drop the subject.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Then, let us go on to your second visit.

SCHACHT: In 1941, in February, I called on Hitler once more because of a private affair. The year before my wife had died and now I intended to remarry. As Minister without Portfolio, which I still was, I naturally had to inform the Reich Chancellor and head of the State of my intention and I called on him for that reason. There was no political discussion on this occasion. As I was going to the door, he asked me, “At one time you had the intention, or you advised me, that someone should go to America. It is probably too late for that, now.” I replied immediately, “Of course, it is too late for that now.” And that was the only remark of a political nature made. The conversation dealt mainly with my marriage, and since then I did not see Hitler any more.

DR. DIX: And now your relations with Göring?

SCHACHT: I did not see Göring either since 1939.

DR. DIX: Now, I am turning to a point which has been repeatedly stressed by the Prosecution, that is, the propaganda value of your participation at Party rallies, and I would like to remind you of what Mr. Justice Jackson has already mentioned in his opening statement. I am translating from the English because I have no German text:

“Does anyone believe that Hjalmar Schacht, seated in the first row at the Nazi Party Rally of 1935 and wearing the Party emblem, was only included in the film for the purpose of making an artistic effect? This great thinker, in lending his name to this threadbare undertaking, gave it respectability in the eyes of every hesitating German.”

Will you please state your opinion on this?

SCHACHT: First of all, I would like to make a few minor corrections. In 1935 I did not have a Party emblem. Secondly, Germans who were hesitating were no longer of any importance in 1935, for Hitler’s domination had been firmly established by 1935. There were only those people who were turning away from Hitler but none who were still coming to him. And then, I must really consider it as a compliment that I am called a figure of importance, a great thinker, and so forth; but I believe that the reasons for my being and working in the Hitler Cabinet have been set forth by me in sufficient detail, so that I need not go into that any more.

The fact that in the first years especially I could not very well absent myself from the Party rallies is understandable, I believe, for they were Hitler’s principal display of show and ostentation for the outside world, and not only did his ministers participate in the Party rallies but also a great many other representative guests.

May I add just a few more words?

I stayed away from the later Party rallies. For example, the Party Rally of 1935 mentioned by the Chief Prosecutor. That was the Party rally—and this is why I happen to remember it—at which the Nuremberg Laws against the Jews were proclaimed, and at the time I was not even in Nuremberg.

I attended the Party Rally in 1933 and in 1934. I am not certain whether I attended it in 1936 or 1937. I rather believe that I attended in 1936. I was decidedly missing at the later rallies and the last visit that I made at the Party Rally, which I have just mentioned, I attended only on “Wehrmacht Day.”

DR. DIX: At these Party Rallies were the prominent foreigners—you already mentioned that. Was the Diplomatic Corps represented by the chiefs of the diplomatic missions?

SCHACHT: I believe that with the exception of the Soviet Ambassador, in the course of years all other leading diplomats attended the Party Rally, and I must say, in large numbers, with great ostentation and seated in the first rows.

DR. DIX: How did you explain that? The Diplomatic Corps only really takes part in functions of State and this was a purely Party matter? How was this participation explained?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think this is objectionable. If it please the Tribunal, I am in a position to object, because I am not embarrassed by it, if there is any embarrassment, but for this witness to explain the conduct of the ambassadors of other countries seems utterly beyond probative value. His opinion of what the ambassadors were doing, why they attended a Party rally which he was lending his name to, doesn’t seem to me has any probative value. The fact that they attended I don’t object to, but it seems to me that for him to probe, unless he has some fact—and I want to make clear I don’t object to any facts that this witness knows, and I haven’t objected to most of his opinions which we have been getting at great length. But I think for him to characterize the action of foreign representatives is going beyond the pale of relevant and material evidence.

SCHACHT: May I make just one remark in reply?

THE PRESIDENT: I think we had better pass on, Dr. Dix.

DR. DIX: Yes, of course. However, I would ask to be given the permission to answer Mr. Justice Jackson briefly, not because I want to be stubborn, but I believe that if I answer now I can avoid later discussions and can save time thereby. I did not ask the defendant for his opinion. Of course Mr. Justice Jackson is right in saying that he is not here to give opinions about the customs of the Diplomatic Corps; but I asked him about a fact: How this participation on the part of the Diplomatic Corps, which is significant, was explained at that time. I consider this relevant, as will be seen more than once in the course of my questioning, and that is why I am saying it now, that throughout his and his political friends’ oppositional activities, it is of prime importance to know who gave them moral, spiritual, or any other support, and who did not support them. And thereby, of course, the outward demeanor of the official representatives of foreign countries during the whole period is of tremendous importance, with regard to the capacity of this opposition group to act. One can support such a group; one can be neutral to it, or one can also combat it from abroad. That is the only reason why I put my question, and I deem myself obligated to consider this angle of the problem also in the future.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, I don’t think Mr. Justice Jackson’s objection was to the fact that the diplomatic representatives were there but to comment upon the reasons why they were there. If all you want to prove is the fact that they were there, then I don’t think Mr. Justice Jackson was objecting to that. What the defendant was going on to give, was his opinion of why the diplomatic representatives were there.

DR. DIX: I believe I do not need to make a further reply. He has already said that he does not wish to give an explanation, but if Your Lordship will permit me, I shall continue.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Around that time, you certainly came into contact with prominent foreigners both officially and privately. What position did they take towards the trend of events at the time the National Socialists consolidated their power? And how did their attitude influence your own attitude and activity?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please the Tribunal! I dislike to interrupt with objections, but I can’t see how it exonerates or aids this defendant, that prominent foreigners may have been deceived by a regime for which he was furnishing the window dressings with his own name and prestige. Undoubtedly there were foreigners, I am willing to stipulate there were foreigners, like Dahlerus, who were deceived by this set-up of which he was a prominent and slightly respectable part. But it does seem to me that if we are going to go into the attitude of foreigners who are not indicted here or accused that we approach endless questions.

I see no relevance in this sort of testimony.

The question is here, as I have tried to point out to Dr. Dix, the sole thing that is charged against this defendant is that he participated in the conspiracy to put this nation into war and to carry out the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity incidental to it.

Now, I can’t see how the attitude of foreigners either exonerates or helps the Court to decide that question. If it does, of course I don’t object to it, but I can’t see the importance of it at this stage.

DR. DIX: I do believe that Mr. Justice Jackson...

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, Dr. Dix, what exactly was the question that you were asking at that moment? What had it reference to?

DR. DIX: I asked the witness what the attitude was that was taken by prominent foreigners with whom he came into contact at that time, officially and privately during the period that the regime consolidated its power. Did they reject the regime, or were they sympathetic to it? In other words, just how far did these foreigners influence him and his thinking? And may I...

THE PRESIDENT: I think you know, Dr. Dix, that to ask one witness what the attitude of other people is is a very much too general form of question. Attitude—what does the word mean? It is far too general, and I do not understand exactly what you are trying to prove.

DR. DIX: I will make the question more precise.

How, Dr. Schacht, through your exchange of thoughts with foreigners, was your personal attitude influenced? How was your attitude and your activity influenced through the attitude of these foreigners?

[_Turning to the Tribunal._] That is something which Dr. Schacht can testify to alone, because it is of an intimate nature and personal to Schacht. Your Lordship, I want quite openly to state the point to be proved which seems very relevant to the Defense and on which this question is based. I do not wish to conceal anything.

I, the Defense, maintain that this oppositional group—about which Gisevius has already spoken, and of which Schacht was a prominent member—that this group not only received no support from abroad, but that foreigners rendered the opposition more difficult. That is not a criticism that is leveled towards foreign governments.

There is no doubt that the representatives of these countries took that attitude in good faith and with a sense of duty in the service of their countries. But it was of decisive value for the attitude of these men of this oppositional group what position the foreign countries took to this regime; whether they respected or whether they supported it by precedence given its representatives, socially, as far as possible, or, through caution and reserve, showed their disinclination to it, thereby strengthening this oppositional group.

This evidence is of the utmost importance to me in the carrying on of the defense. I have stated it quite openly, and, as much as I can, I will fight for this piece of evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the Tribunal has considered the argument which you have presented to it and they think that the investigation of these facts is a waste of time and is irrelevant. They will, therefore, ask you to go on with the further examination of the defendant.

DR. DIX: Dr. Schacht, you supported the rearmament through financing by the Reichsbank. Why did you do that?

SCHACHT: I considered that Germany absolutely had to have political equality with other nations, and I am of the same opinion today; and in order to reach this state, it was necessary that either the general disarmament which had been promised by the Allied powers would come into effect, or that if equal rights were to be obtained Germany would have to rearm on a corresponding scale.

DR. DIX: Was this financial help by the Reichsbank your work alone or was that decreed through the Directorate of the Reichsbank?

SCHACHT: In the Reichsbank, the Leadership Principle was never applied; I rejected the Leadership Principle for the Reichsbank. The Reichsbank was governed by a group of men all of whom had an equal power to vote and if there was a “tie,” the vote of the chairman was the decisive vote, and beyond that the chairman had no rights in this board.

DR. DIX: You are familiar with the affidavit of the former Reichsbank Director Puhl. Did—I put the question taking into consideration the contents of this affidavit with which the Tribunal is acquainted—Puhl also participate in giving financial help from the Reichsbank for rearmament?

SCHACHT: Herr Puhl participated in all decisions which were made by the Reichsbank Directorate on this question and not once did he oppose the decision reached.

DR. DIX: It is known to you that the Reichsbank’s method of financing consisted in the discounting of the so-called mefo bills. The Prosecution have discussed this fact in detail and the afore-mentioned affidavit signed by Puhl says that this method made it possible to keep the extent of rearmament secret. Is that correct?

SCHACHT: We cannot even talk about keeping the armament a secret. I call your attention to some excerpts from documents presented and submitted by the Prosecution themselves as exhibits. I quote first of all from the affidavit by George Messersmith, dated 30 August 1945, Document Number 2385-PS, where it says on Page 3, Line 19: “Immediately after the Nazis came into power they started a vast rearmament program.” And on Page 8 it says: “The huge German armament program which was never a secret....”

Thus, Mr. George Messersmith, who was in Berlin at the time, knew about these matters and I am sure, informed his colleagues also.

I continue quoting from Document Number EC-461. It is the diary of Ambassador Dodd, where it says, under 19 September 1934, and I quote in English for I just have the English text before me:

“When Schacht declared that the Germans are not arming so intensively, I said: Last January and February Germany bought from American aircraft people one million dollars worth of high-class war flying machinery and paid in gold.”

This is from a conversation between Dodd and myself which took place in September 1934 and he points out that already in January and February 1934 war aircraft...

[_The proceedings were interrupted by technical difficulties in the lighting system._]

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.

[_A recess was taken._]

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know how long you expect to be with your examination-in-chief of the defendant. You have already been nearly a whole day, and the Tribunal think, in view of the directions in the Charter, that the examination of the defendant ought to finish certainly in a day.

DR. DIX: Your Lordship, there are two things I do not like to do, to make prophecies which do not come true and to make a promise I cannot keep.

May I answer the question by saying that I consider it quite impossible for me to finish today. I am fully aware of the rules of the Charter, but on the other hand I am asking you to consider that the Prosecution have tried to prove the accusations against Schacht by numerous pieces of evidence, directly and indirectly relevant facts, and that it is my duty to deal with these individual pieces of evidence offered by the Prosecution.

Please apply strict measures to my questions and if the Tribunal should be of the opinion that there is something irrelevant, then I shall certainly adhere to their ruling. However, I do think that I have not only the right, but also the duty to put any questions which are necessary to refute the evidence submitted by the Prosecution.

I shall, therefore, certainly not be able to finish today. I think—I should be extremely grateful if you would not make me prophesy, it may go faster and tomorrow I may finish in the course of the day but it may even take the whole day—I cannot say for certain. In any case, I shall make every effort to put only relevant questions. If the Tribunal should be of the opinion that something is not relevant, I ask to be told so after I have explained my standpoint.

THE PRESIDENT: I think you had better get on at once then, Dr. Dix, and we’ll tell you when we think your questions are too long or too irrelevant.

DR. DIX: Now, Dr. Schacht, we were considering the mefo bills, did you consider them as a suitable means of keeping the rearmament secret? Have you anything else to say to that question?

SCHACHT: The mefo bills as such, as far as rearmament was concerned, had of course no connection with the question of secrecy, for the mefo bills were used to pay every supplier. And there were, of course, hundreds and thousands of small and big suppliers all over the country.

Apart from that, before they could be taken to the Reichsbank, the mefo bills circulated among the public for at least 3 months and the suppliers who required cash used the mefo bills to discount them in their banks or to have advances made on the strength of them, so that all banks participated in this system.

But I should like to add also that all the mefo bills, which were taken up by the Reichsbank, were listed on the bill account of the Reichsbank. Furthermore, I should like to say that the keeping secret of State expenditure—and armament expenditures were State expenditure—was not a matter for the President of the Reichsbank but an affair concerning the Reich Minister of Finance. If the Reich Minister of Finance did not publish the guarantees which he had accepted for the mefo bills, then that was his affair and not mine. I am not responsible for that. The responsibility for that lies with the Reich Minister of Finance.

DR. DIX: The next question, Your Lordship, might arouse doubts as to its relevancy. I personally consider it irrelevant for the verdict in this Trial. However, it has been mentioned by the Prosecution, and for that reason alone I think it is my duty to give Dr. Schacht an opportunity to reply and to justify himself.

The Prosecution have represented the view that the financing by means of mefo bills, from the point of view of a solid financial procedure, was also very hazardous. One might adopt the view that that may have been the case or not to make this verdict...

THE PRESIDENT: Ask the question, Dr. Dix, ask the question.

DR. DIX: You have heard what I have in mind.

SCHACHT: It goes without saying that in normal times and under normal economic conditions such means as mefo bills would not have been resorted to. But if there is an emergency, then it has always been customary, and it has always been a policy recommended by all experts, that the issuing bank should furnish cheap money and credits so that the economic system can, in turn, continue to function.

Mefo bills, of course, were a thoroughly risky operation, but they were absolutely not risky if they were connected with a reasonable financial procedure and to prove this I would say that if Herr Hitler, after 1937, had used the accruing funds to pay back the mefo bills, as had been intended—the money was available—then this system would have come to its end just as smoothly as I had put it in operation. But Herr Hitler preferred simply to refuse to pay the bills back, and instead to invest the money in further armament. I could not foresee that someone would break his word in such a matter too, a purely business matter.

DR. DIX: But, if the Reich had met the bills and had paid, then means would no doubt have partly been lacking for further rearmaments and the taking up of the bills would therefore have curtailed armament. Is that a correct conclusion?

SCHACHT: That, of course, was the very purpose of my wanting to terminate the procedure. I said if the mefo bills were not met, it would obviously show ill-will; then there would be further rearming, and that cannot be.

DR. DIX: Earlier you briefly dealt with the question of keeping armament secret in another connection. Have you anything to add to that?

SCHACHT: I think in a general manner it must be realized that State expenditures do not come under the jurisdiction of the President of the Reichsbank, and that the expenses and receipts of the State are under the control of the Reich Minister of Finance, and consequently the responsibility lies in his hands and it is his duty to publish the figures. Every bill which the Reichsbank had in its possession was made known every week.

DR. DIX: Is that what you have to add to your answer to the basic question of allegedly keeping the armament program secret?

SCHACHT: Yes.

DR. DIX: You have also already explained on the side why you fundamentally were in favor of rearmament. Have you anything to add to that?

SCHACHT: Yes. A few very important remarks are, of course, to be made on that and since this question concerns the chief accusation against me, I may perhaps deal with it in greater detail.

I considered an unarmed Germany in the center of Europe, surrounded by armed nations, as a menace to peace. I want to say that these states were not only armed but that they were, to a very large part, continuing to arm and arming anew. Especially two states which had not existed before, Czechoslovakia and Poland, were beginning to arm, and England, for example, was continuing to rearm, specifically with reference to her naval rearmament in 1935, _et cetera_.

I should like to say quite briefly that I myself was of the opinion that a country which was not armed could not defend itself, and that consequently it would have no voice in the concert of nations. The British Prime Minister Baldwin once said, in 1935:

“A country which is not willing to take necessary precautionary measures for its own defense will never have power in this world, neither moral power nor material power.”

I considered the inequality of status between the countries surrounding Germany and Germany as a permanent moral and material danger to Germany.

I further want to point out—and this is not meant to be criticism, but merely a statement of fact—that Germany, after the Treaty of Versailles, was in a state of extreme disorganization and confusion. Conditions in Europe were such that, for example, a latent conflict and controversy existed between Russia and Finland and between Russia and Poland which had considerable parts of Russian territory. There was Russia’s latent conflict with Romania which had Bessarabia, and then Romania had a conflict with Bulgaria about the Dobruja and one with Hungary about Siebenbürgen. There were conflicts between Serbia and Hungary, and between Hungary and nearly all her neighbors and between Bulgaria and Greece. In short all of Eastern Europe was in a continuous state of mutual suspicion and conflict of interests.

In addition, there was the fact that in a number of countries there were most serious internal conflicts. I remind you of the conflict between the Czechs and the Slovaks. I remind you of the civil war conditions in Spain. All that will make it possible to understand that I considered it absolutely essential that in the event of the outbreak of any conflagration in this devil’s punch bowl, it was an absolute necessity for Germany to protect at least her neutral attitude. That could not possibly be done with that small army of 100,000 men. For that an adequate army had to be created.

Here in prison I accidentally came across an edition of the _Daily Mail_, dated April 1937, where the conditions in Europe were described, and I beg you to allow me to quote one single sentence. I shall have to quote it in English. It does not represent the views of the _Daily Mail_; it only describes conditions in Europe.

I quote:

“All observers are agreed that there is continual peril of an explosion and that the crazy frontiers of the peace treaties cannot be indefinitely maintained. Here, too, rigorous non-interference should be the King of the British chariot. What vital interests have we in Austria or in Czechoslovakia, or in Romania, or in Lithuania or Poland?”

This merely describes the seething state of Europe at that time, and in this overheated boiling pot which was always on the point of exploding, there was Germany, unarmed. I considered that a most serious danger to my country.

Now, I shall probably be asked whether I considered Germany threatened in any way. No, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I did not consider Germany threatened directly with an attack, nor was I of the opinion that Russia was likely to attack Germany. However, for example, we had experienced the invasion of the Ruhr in 1923 and these past events and the actual situation made it imperative for me to demand equality for Germany and to support a policy that would attempt to achieve this.

I assume that we shall deal with the reasons for the carrying out of the rearmament and with the reaction of foreign countries, _et cetera_.

DR. DIX: What did you know at the time about Germany’s efforts to cause the other nations to disarm? Did that have anything to do with your decisions?

SCHACHT: Let me tell you the following:

Fundamentally, I was not in favor of rearmament. I only wanted equality for Germany. That German equality could be brought about either by means of disarmament on the part of the other nations or by our own rearmament. I would have preferred, in fact I desired disarmament on the part of the others, which anyway had been promised to us. Consequently I most zealously tried all along for years to prevent a rearmament, if general disarmament could be brought about.

The disarmament on the part of the others did not take place, although the Disarmament Committee of the League of Nations had repeatedly declared that Germany had met her obligations regarding disarmament.

To all of us who were members of the so-called National Government at the time, and to all Germans who participated in political life, it was a considerable relief that during the first years Hitler, again and again, strove for and suggested general disarmament. Afterwards, of course, it is easy to say that that was a false pretense and a lie on Hitler’s part, but that false pretense and that lie would have blown up quite quickly if the countries abroad had shown the slightest inclination to take up these suggestions.

I remember quite well what was told Foreign Minister Eden of Great Britain when he visited Germany at the beginning of 1934, because I was present at the social festivities. Quite concrete proposals concerning Germany’s obligations in all disarmament questions, in case disarmament on the part of the others was begun and carried out, were made to him. It was promised to Eden that all so-called half-military units, like the SS, the SA, and the Hitler Youth, would be deprived of their military character if only the general disarmament could be accelerated by those means.

I could produce a number of quotations regarding these offers to disarm, but since it is the wish of the President not to delay the proceedings, I can forego that. They are all well-known statements made by statesmen and ministers, ambassadors, and such, all of which have the same tenor, namely, that it was absolutely essential that the promise made by the Allies should be kept; in other words, that disarmament should be carried out.

DR. DIX: Excuse me if I interrupt you, but we can do it more quickly and more simply by asking the Tribunal to take judicial notice of Exhibit Number Schacht-12, which I have been granted, without my reading it, Page 31 of the English translation of my document book. These are pertinent remarks and speeches made by Lord Cecil and others, by the Belgian Foreign Minister, _et cetera_. There is no need to read them; they can be presented. I just hear that they have been presented, and I can refer to them.

Pardon me, please. Continue.

SCHACHT: Well, in that case I am finished with my statement. Hitler made still further offers but the other countries did not take up a single one of these offers, and thus, unfortunately, only one alternative remained, and that was rearmament. That rearmament carried out by Hitler was financed with my assistance, and I assume responsibility for everything I have done in that connection.

DR. DIX: Do I understand you correctly? Can one draw the conclusion from your statement that there were other reasons for your assistance in the rearmament program, that you had the tactical consideration that, by putting German rearmament up for discussion, the debate on disarmament amongst the other governments might be started again? This debate, so to say, had died down?

SCHACHT: If I may, I will illustrate it briefly by means of an example:

Two parties have a contract with each other. One party does not live up to that contract, and the other party has no way of making him fulfill his obligations. Thus the other party can do nothing except, in turn, not adhere to the contract. That is what Germany did. That is what I supported. Now, of course, I must say that I had expected a type of reaction which in such a case must always be expected from the partner to a contract, namely, that he would say, “Well, if you do not keep up the contract either, then we shall have to discuss this contract again.”

I must say—and I can quite safely use the word—it was a disappointment to me that Germany’s rearmament was not in any way replied to by any actions from the Allies. This so-called breach of contract on Germany’s part against the Versailles Treaty was taken quite calmly. A note of protest was all; nothing in the least was done, apart from that, to bring up again the question of disarmament in which I was interested.

Not only was Germany allowed to go on rearming but the Naval Agreement with Great Britain did, in fact, give Germany the legal right to rearm contrary to the Versailles Treaty. Military missions were sent to Germany to look at this rearmament, and German military displays were visited and everything else was done, but nothing at all was done to stop Germany’s rearmament.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If the Tribunal please, I cannot see the point of all this detail. We have conceded that rearmament here, except as it was involved with aggressive purposes, is immaterial. As I said in the opening, the United States does not care to try here the issues of European politics, nor are they submitted to this Tribunal for decision.

The sole question here is the Indictment, charging arming with the purpose of aggression.

I do not want to interfere with the defendant giving any facts that bear on his aggressive intentions, but the details of negotiations, of European politics and charges and countercharges between governments, it seems to me, lies way back of any inquiry that we could possibly make, and the details of this matter seem to me not helpful to the solution of the issues here, and I think was ruled out by the Tribunal in the case of Göring, if I am not mistaken.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Dix, it all seems to be a matter of argument, and argument isn’t really the subject of evidence.

DR. DIX: I do not believe so, Your Lordship. What Mr. Justice Jackson said is quite correct. Schacht is accused of having assisted in bringing about an aggressive war, but this assistance of his is supposed to have consisted in the financing which he carried out.

THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Dix, and do try to make it as short as possible.

DR. DIX: I think you had come to the end of that question anyway.

May I refer in this connection to one of the motives for Dr. Schacht’s assistance in rearmament. It was his hope to renew the debate on disarmament. May I draw your attention to Exhibit Number Schacht-36, Page 141 of the German text, and Page 149 of the English text? It is an affidavit from Dr. Schacht’s son-in-law, Dr. Von Scherpenberg. On Page 2 of that affidavit you will find the following brief paragraph which I propose to read; in fact, I can confine myself to one sentence:

“He”—that is to say, Schacht—“considered rearmament within certain limits to be the only means for the re-establishing of the disturbed equilibrium and the only means of inducing the other European powers to participate in a limitation of armaments which, in opposition to the Versailles Treaty, they had sought to avoid.”

That is a statement of Scherpenberg regarding conversations which Schacht had had at that time. It is, therefore, not an _ex post facto_ opinion; it is the report of a conversation which he, Scherpenberg, had with his father-in-law Schacht at that time. That is just an additional remark I wanted to make.

[_Turning to the defendant._] You have spoken about the rearmament on the part of the other states, particularly Czechoslovakia and Poland, but can you tell us whether at the time you knew of or heard any exact details regarding the state of armament of those two states?

SCHACHT: I know only that it was known about Russia that in 1935 she announced that her peacetime army should be increased to 960,000 men.

Then I knew that in Czechoslovakia, for instance, the installation of airdromes was one of the leading tasks of rearmament. We knew that Great Britain’s Navy was to be stepped up.

DR. DIX: Did you later on completely abandon your idea of general disarmament?

SCHACHT: To the contrary, I used every opportunity, in particular during conversations with men from abroad, to say that the aim should always be disarmament, that, of course, rearmament would always mean an economic burden for us, which we considered a most unpleasant state of affairs.

I remember a conversation which I had with the American Ambassador Davies. His report of this conversation is incorporated in an exhibit that has been submitted to the Tribunal. It is an entry in a diary which is repeated in his book, _Mission to Moscow_, and it is dated as early as 20 June 1937, Berlin. He is writing about the fact that among other things he and I had talked about disarmament problems, and I need only quote one sentence. I do not have the number of the document, Your Lordship, but it has been submitted to the Tribunal.

DR. DIX: It is Exhibit Schacht-18, German Page 43, English Page 49.

SCHACHT: Since I have only the English text, I shall read from it.

Davies writes:

“When I outlined the President’s (Roosevelt) suggestion of limitation of armament to defensive weapons only, such as a man could carry on his shoulder, he (means Schacht) almost jumped out of his seat with enthusiasm.”

It becomes clear, therefore, from Ambassador Davies’ remark that I was most enthusiastic about this renewed attempt and the possibility of an imminent step towards disarmament as proposed by President Roosevelt.

In this same book, Davies reports a few days later on 26 June 1937 about the conversation he had with me, in a letter addressed to the President of the United States. I quote only one very brief paragraph—in English again:

“I then stated to him (that is, Schacht) that the President in conversation with me had analyzed the European situation and had considered that a solution might be found in an agreement among the European nations to a reduction of armaments to a purely defensive military basis and this through the elimination of aircraft, tanks, and heavy equipment, and the limitation of armaments to such weapons only as a man could carry on his back, with an agreement among the nations for adequate policing of the plan by a neutral state. Schacht literally jumped at the idea. He said: ‘That’s absolutely the solution.’ He said that in its simplicity it had the earmarks of great genius. His enthusiasm was extraordinary.”

DR. DIX: To what extent did you want rearmament?

SCHACHT: Not beyond equality with every single one of our neighbor states.

DR. DIX: And did Hitler talk to you of far-reaching intentions, or did you hear of any?

SCHACHT: At no time did he tell them to me, nor did I hear from anyone else, whether he had made remarks about further intentions.

DR. DIX: Were you informed about the extent, the type and speed of rearmament?

SCHACHT: No, I was never told about that.

DR. DIX: Had you set yourself a limit regarding this financing or were you prepared to advance any amount of money?

SCHACHT: I was certainly, by no means, ready to advance any unlimited amount of money, particularly as these were not contributions; they were credits which had to be repaid. The limits for these credits were twofold. One was that the Reichsbank was independent of the State finance administration, and the supreme authority of the State as far as the granting of the credits was concerned. The Board of Directors of the Reichsbank could pass a resolution that credits were to be given, or were not to be given, or that credits were to be stopped, if they considered it right, and as I was perfectly certain of the policy of the Board of Directors of the Reichsbank—all of these gentlemen agreed with me perfectly on financial and banking policy—this was the first possibility of applying a brake, if I considered it necessary.

The second safeguard—limit was contained in the agreement which the Minister of Finance, the Government, and of course Hitler had made—the mefo bills, of which these credits consisted, were to be paid back when they expired. They were repayable after 5 years, and I have already said that if the repayments had been made, funds for rearmament would naturally have had to decrease. Therein lay the second possibility of limiting the rearmament.

DR. DIX: Will you please give now to the Tribunal the figures which you were dealing with at the time?

SCHACHT: We went up to...

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: We have no desire to enter into controversy about the figures of financing rearmament. It seems that the detail of dollars and cents or Reichsmarks is unimportant to this, and terribly involved. We aren’t trying whether it cost too much or too little; the purpose of this rearmament is the only question we have in mind. I don’t see that the statistics of cost have anything to do with it.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, we would like to know what figures the accused and you are talking about.

DR. DIX: The amounts that Schacht as President of the Reichsbank was ready to grant for the rearmament program; that, no doubt, is relevant, because if those amounts remained within such limits as might possibly be considered adequate for defensive rearmaments in case of emergency, then, of course, the extent of that financial assistance is a very important piece of evidence regarding the intentions which Schacht was pursuing at the time. That is the very thing that, in the case of Schacht, Mr. Justice Jackson considers relevant, namely, whether he helped prepare for an aggressive war. If he were considering only the possibility of a defensive war in his financing and placed only sums at the disposal of the rearmament program which would never have allowed an aggressive war, then that would refute the accusation raised by the Prosecution against the defendant, and I think that the relevance of that question cannot be doubted.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you saying that if the Defendant Schacht placed at the disposal of the Reich, say, 100 millions, or whatever the figure is, it would be defensive, and if he placed 150 millions, it would be not defensive, or what? Is it simply the amount?

DR. DIX: No, I want to say that if, as will be proved, he only wanted to give 9 and later on gave hesitatingly and unwillingly 12 millions for the purpose, then that contribution can never have been aimed at an aggressive war.

THE PRESIDENT: It is simply the amount?

DR. DIX: Yes, only the size of the amount.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, that can be stated very shortly, but as for details of finance...

DR. DIX: I am also of the opinion that we have talked about it too long. I was only going to ask, “What amount did you give?” and then the objection was raised, and thus the discussion was drawn out. May I put the question?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. DIX: [_Turning to the defendant._] Well, then, what amount did you intend to grant?

SCHACHT: Naturally as little as possible; however, what I contributed is what is decisive. I placed at their disposal—to give one figure and to be very brief—until 31 March 1938, credits amounting to a total of 12,000,000,000 Reichsmark. I have discussed that with one of the interrogators of the British Prosecution, who asked me about the subject, and I replied that that was about one-third of the amount which was spent on rearmament. After that, without the Reichsbank, beginning with 1 April 1938, the figure stated in that budget year for rearmament was 11,000,000,000, and in the subsequent year, 20,500,000,000, and of that not a pfennig came from the Reichsbank.

DR. DIX: That was after your resignation, was it not?

SCHACHT: That was after I had stopped credits.

For the record I should like to say that I think I made a mistake before. I said millions instead of milliards, but I think it is obvious what I meant. I wanted only to correct it.

DR. DIX: Now, then, Dr. Schacht, the Prosecution have stated that on 19 February 1935 the Ministry of Finance received authority to borrow unlimited amounts of money if Hitler ordered them to do so.

SCHACHT: Here, again, the prosecutor did not see things in the proper light. The President of the Reichsbank is not responsible for the actions of the Reich Minister of Finance. I think the President of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York can hardly be held responsible for the things done by the Secretary of the Treasury in Washington.

DR. DIX: You have also been accused that the debt of the Reich increased three times during the time while you were President of the Reichsbank.

SCHACHT: I might just as well be accused of being responsible for the fact that the birth rate in Germany rose sharply during the time I was President of the Reichsbank. I want to emphasize the fact that I had nothing to do with either.

DR. DIX: You were not responsible for the same reason.

SCHACHT: No, of course I am not responsible for that.

DR. DIX: And presumably the same applies to the point made by the Prosecution that you allegedly drafted a new finance program in 1938?

SCHACHT: On the contrary, I refused to do anything else for the financing of rearmament; the finance program was drafted by a state secretary in the Reich Finance Ministry, and it looked like it.

DR. DIX: One of your economic policies, during the time you were Minister of Economy, and which you have been accused of as being a preparation for war, was the so-called “New Plan” (Neue Plan). What was that?

SCHACHT: May I first of all say that the New Plan had nothing at all to do with rearmament. Germany, after the Treaty of Versailles, had fallen into a state of distress, economically speaking and especially export...

DR. DIX: Your Lordship, if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the New Plan has nothing to do with the rearmament and preparations for war—I think the Prosecution are of the opposite opinion—then, of course, the question is irrelevant, and I will drop it. I am only putting it because the New Plan has been used in the argumentation of the Prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: If you say, and the defendant has just said that the New Plan had nothing to do with rearmament, I think you might leave it for cross-examination and you can raise it again in re-examination if it is cross-examined.

DR. DIX [_Turning to the defendant_]: In that case I shall not ask you about the barter agreements, either. I shall leave it to the Prosecution to bring it out during the cross-examination. I cannot see what it has to do with the preparation for war.

Now, you have already stated that you strove to remove the Versailles Treaty by means of peaceful negotiations, or at least, to modify it. In the opinion which you held at that time did any such means for a peaceful modification of the Versailles Treaty still exist?

SCHACHT: In my opinion, there were no means other than peaceful ones. The desire to modify the Versailles Treaty by means of a new war was a crime.

DR. DIX: Well. But now you are being accused that the alleged preparations for war, which really were a countermeasure to the general rearmament although not a preparation for an aggressive war, were nevertheless a rearmament, and as such, were an infringement of the Treaty of Versailles. I assume that you, at the time, decided to help finance that rearmament only after giving the problem due legal and moral considerations. What, exactly, were these considerations?

SCHACHT: I think I have already answered that question in detail. I need add nothing else.

DR. DIX: Very well. Insofar as you know, was this attitude of yours, the attitude of a pacifist and of someone who was definitely opposed to the extension of living space in Europe, known abroad?

SCHACHT: As long as I have been President of the Reichsbank, that is to say from March 1933—and I am, of course, only talking about the Hitler regime—my friends and acquaintances abroad were fully informed about my attitude and views. I had a great many friends and acquaintances abroad, not only because of my profession but also outside of that and particularly in Basel, Switzerland, where we had our monthly meeting at the International Bank, with all the presidents of the issuing banks of all the great and certain neutral countries, and I always took occasion at all these meetings to describe quite clearly the situation in Germany to these gentlemen.

Perhaps I may at this point refer to the so-called conducting of foreign conferences or conversations. If one is not allowed to talk to foreigners any more, then one cannot, of course, reach an understanding with them. Those silly admonitions, that one had to avoid contact with foreigners, seem entirely uncalled for to me, and if the witness Gisevius deemed it necessary the other day to protect his dead comrades, who were my comrades too, from being accused of committing high treason, then I should like to say that I consider it quite unnecessary. Never at any time did any member of our group betray any German interests. To the contrary, he fought for the interests of Germany, and to prove that, I should like to give you a good example:

After we had occupied Paris, the files of the Quai d’Orsay were confiscated and were carefully screened by officials from the German Foreign Office. I need not assure you that they were primarily looking for proof whether there were not any so-called defeatists circles in Germany which had unmasked themselves somewhere abroad. All the files of the Quai d’Orsay referring to my person and, of course, there were records of many discussions which I had had with Frenchmen, were examined by the Foreign Office officials at that time, without my knowing it.

One day—I think it probably happened in the course of 1941—I received a letter from a German professor who had participated in this search carried out by the Foreign Office. I shall mention the name so that, if necessary, he can testify. He is a Professor of Finance and National Economy, Professor Stückenbeck of Erlangen, and he wrote me that at this investigation...

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal cannot see any point in this, so far as this Trial is concerned. In any event, if the defendant says that he did not, in any way, give away the interests of Germany, surely that is sufficient. We do not need all the details about it. What it has got to do with this Trial, I do not know.

DR. DIX: I think, Your Lordship, that that was not the point of the statement. What he wants to say is that reliable men abroad knew him and were acquainted with the fact that he was certainly a man of peace and not a man who prepared aggressive wars, and that applies even to the period of rearmament.

THE PRESIDENT: But he said that 5 minutes ago.

DR. DIX: I do not think the question of Professor Stückenbeck is so important, but it certainly seems pertinent to me what Ambassador Davies said about his conversation with the then Foreign Commissar of the Soviet Republic, Litvinov. This is contained in Exhibit Schacht-18 of my document book. It is Page 43 of the German text, and Page 49 of the English text. May I read one paragraph, and then ask Dr. Schacht briefly whether that statement of Ambassador Davies corresponds to his recollection? It is Davies’ report, an extract from his book _Mission to Moscow_. A report is there to the Secretary of State in the United States. The passage is on Pages 108 and 109.

“Pursuant to an appointment made, I called upon Commissar for Foreign Affairs Litvinov to present my respects before departure for the United States.

“I then stated that the European situation in its elementals looked simple and that it was difficult to understand why the statesmanship of Europe could not provide that England, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia should agree to preserve the territorial integrity of Europe and through trade agreements provide Germany with raw materials, thereby giving the assurance that she could live, which would relieve the peoples of Europe and the world of these terrific burdens of armament and of the fear of catastrophic war. The prompt rejoinder was: ‘Do you think Hitler would ever agree to anything like that?’ I said that I did not know, but that it was my opinion that there was a very substantial body of influential and responsible men in Germany that such an idea would appeal to. Litvinov replied that he thought that might be so; that Schacht was of that type; he did not think they could prevail against Hitler and the political and military forces dominant in Germany.”

And now I ask you, do you remember that conversation with Davies?

SCHACHT: I think there must be a mistake. I did not speak to Davies about this, I spoke to Litvinov. This is a report of Davies to the Secretary of State, about which I did not know.

DR. DIX: Yes, you are perfectly right.

It has been repeatedly emphasized by the Prosecution that your knowledge of Hitler’s intentions of war resulted also from your being Plenipotentiary for War Economy and a member of the Reich Defense Counsel. Göring has made a detailed statement on it. Have you anything new to add to Göring’s statement?

SCHACHT: I think the witness Lammers has also talked about it. I should like merely to confirm that the first Reich Defense Counsel of 1935 was nothing other than the legalization of a committee which existed before 1933, made up of ministerial officials who were supposed to deal with economic measures as well as administrative measures, which might have to be taken in the event of a threat of war against Germany.

DR. DIX: How often did you have a meeting especially with the Minister of War and the Plenipotentiary for Administration?

SCHACHT: This famous triumvirate, this Three Man College described by one of the prosecutors as the cornerstone of war policy, never met at all, and it is no wonder that we lost the war, if that was the cornerstone.

DR. DIX: The Prosecution have also referred to the report of the Ministry of War regarding the task of the Reich Defense Counsel of 1934. It is Document Number EC-128, Exhibit Number USA-623. Have you anything in particular to add to that?

SCHACHT: Yes, I should like to have permission to quote one very brief paragraph. I see there are only two sentences. This report contains the following statement:

Referring to the experiences of World War I, that is 1914 to 1918, and I quote—I shall have to do it in English since I have only the English, I quote:

“At that time we were able to extend our bases for raw materials and production toward the West: Longwy, Briey, Tourcoing, Roubaix, Antwerp (textiles), and toward the East, Lodz, and Southeast (ore mines in Serbia and Turkey, mineral oils in Romania). Today we have to reckon with the possibility of being thrown back in our own country and even of being deprived thereby of most valuable industrial and raw material in the West and in the East.”

I think that if anyone wanting to prepare an aggressive war had calculated in September 1934 that one would have to protect oneself against the possibility of such a situation arising, that this is the best proof that there can be no question of an aggressive war at all.

DR. DIX: In that connection, under the heading of “peaceful efforts,” can you perhaps also tell the Tribunal what your peaceful efforts were, to have the reparations clauses of the Versailles Treaty modified or even abolished?

SCHACHT: From the very first moment, after the reparations were determined in 1921 or so, I fought against this nonsense with the argument that the carrying out of those reparations would throw the entire world into economic chaos. One cannot, during one generation, pay 120,000,000,000 Reichsmark or about 2,000,000,000 Reichsmark yearly, as at that time...

DR. DIX: We would like to make it brief. Will you please talk only about your peaceful efforts and not about national economy?

SCHACHT: All right, I will not talk about national economy.

I fought against it and, as time went by, I did succeed in convincing the people of almost all the countries that this was sheer nonsense. Therefore in July of 1932, if I am not mistaken, the then Reich Chancellor Papen was in a position to affix his signature to an agreement at Lausanne, which reduced reparations, _de jure_, to a pending sum of 3,000,000,000, and which, _de facto_, canceled reparations altogether.

DR. DIX: Did you then continue your definitely peaceful efforts in other fields? You have already touched upon the negotiations in Paris regarding the colonial question. I wonder if you have anything to add to that in this connection?

SCHACHT: I do not remember at the moment how far I had gone at the time, but I think I reported on the negotiations in detail, so I need not repeat.

DR. DIX: George Messersmith, the often-mentioned former Consul General of the United States in Berlin, states in his affidavit Document Number EC-451, Exhibit Number USA-626, to which the Prosecution have referred, that he is of the opinion that the National Socialist regime could not have been in a position to stay in power and build up its war machine if it had not been for your activity. At the end of the case for the Prosecution, the Prosecution present that thesis of Messersmith. Therefore I should like you to make a statement on this subject.

SCHACHT: I do not know whether that completely unsubstantiated private opinion of Mr. Messersmith has any value as evidence. Nevertheless, I should like to contradict it by means of a few figures. I had stated earlier that until 31 March 1938, the Reichsbank had given 12,000,000,000; that is to say, during the first fiscal year, about 2,250,000,000, and during the subsequent 3 years, 3,250,000,000 per annum. During those years—the Codefendant Keitel was asked about that when he was examined here—the armament expenditures, as Keitel said, amounted to the following:

In the fiscal year 1935-1936—5,000,000,000.

In the fiscal year 1936-1937—7,000,000,000.

In the following fiscal year—9,000,000,000.

And at that stage the assistance from the Reichsbank ceased. In spite of that, during the following year and without any assistance from the Reichsbank, the expenditure for armament increased to 11,000,000,000, and in the following year it climbed to 20,500,000,000.

It appears, therefore, that even without the financial genius of Herr Schacht, they managed to raise the funds. Just how they did so is another question.

DR. DIX: I duly put these figures to the Defendant Keitel. I do not think that the Tribunal had the document at the time. It is now available and has the Exhibit Number Schacht-7. It is Page 15 of the German text and Page 21 of the English text. Herr Keitel could, of course, only refer to the first column, that is to say, total expenditure; but there is a second and a third column, in this account, and these two are calculations made by Schacht, calculations regarding what was raised with the help and without the help of the Reichsbank.

I do not intend to go through it in detail now. I should merely like to have your permission to ask Dr. Schacht whether the figures calculated by him, in Columns 2 and 3 of the document, were calculated correctly.

SCHACHT: I have these figures in the document before me. The figures are absolutely correct and again I want to declare that they show that, during the first year after the Reichsbank had discontinued its assistance, no less than 5,125,000,000 more were spent without the assistance of the Reichsbank, that is to say, a total of 11,000,000,000.

DR. DIX: Up to now you have stated to the Tribunal that you were active against a dangerous and extensive rearmament and you showed that by tying up the money bag. Did you oppose excessive rearmament in any other way, for instance, by giving lectures and such?

SCHACHT: Many times I spoke not only before economists and professors who were my main auditors, but I often spoke upon invitation of the Minister of War and the head of the Army Academy before high-ranking officers. In all these lectures I continually referred to the financial and economic limitations to which German rearmament was subject and I warned against excessive rearmament.

DR. DIX: When did you first gather the impression that the extent of German rearmament was excessive and exaggerated?

SCHACHT: It is very difficult to give you a date. Beginning in 1935, I made continuous attempts to slow down the speed of rearmament. On one occasion Hitler had said—just a moment, I have it here—that until the spring of 1936 the same speed would have to be maintained. I adhered to that as much as possible, although, beginning with the second half of 1935, I continuously applied the brake. But after 1935 I told myself that, since the Führer himself had said it, after the spring of 1936 the same speed would no longer be necessary. This can be seen from Document 1301-PS in which these statements of mine are quoted, statements which I communicated to the so-called “small Ministerial Council” (kleiner Ministerrat). Göring contradicted me during that meeting, but I of course maintain the things which I said at the time.

After that I constantly tried to make the Minister of War do something to slow down the speed of rearmament, if only in the interest of general economy, since I wanted to see the economic system working for the export trade. Proof for the fact of just how much I urged the Minister of War is contained in my letter dated 24 December 1935, which I wrote him when I saw the period desired by Hitler coming to an end, and when I was already applying the brake. It has also been presented by the Prosecution as Document Number EC-293. In the English version of the document it is on Page 25.

I beg to be allowed to quote very briefly—all my quotations are very brief—from that document. I wrote a letter to the Reich Minister of War, and I quote:

“I gather from your letter dated 29 November”—and then come the reference numbers—“that increased demands by the Armed Forces for copper and lead are to be expected, which will amount to practically double the present consumption. These are only current demands, whereas the equally urgent provisions for the future are not contained in the figures. You are expecting me to obtain the necessary foreign currency for these demands, and to that I respectfully reply that under the existing circumstances I see no possibility of doing so.”

In other words, Blomberg is asking that I should buy raw materials with foreign currency, and I am stating quite clearly that I do not see any possibility of doing so.

The document goes on to say—and this is the sentence regarding the limit up to 1 April. I quote:

“In all the conferences held with the Führer and Reich Chancellor up to now, as well as with the leading military departments, I have expressed my conviction that it would be possible to supply the necessary foreign currencies and raw materials for the existing degree of rearmament until 1 April 1936. Despite the fact that, due to our cultural and agrarian policies which are being repudiated all over the world, this has been made extremely difficult for me and continues to be difficult, I still hope that my original plan may be carried out.”

That is to say, that I thought this proposed program could be carried out up to 1 April, but not over and beyond that.

DR. DIX: It is a fact that Minister of Transportation, Dorpmüller, was trying to raise credits for railway purposes. What was your attitude as President of the Reichsbank towards this?

SCHACHT: During a conference between the Führer, Dorpmüller, and myself, at which the Führer strongly supported Dorpmüller’s demands, I turned that credit down straightway, and he did not get it.

DR. DIX: The meeting of 27 May 1936 of the so-called “small Ministerial Council,” presided over by Göring, has been discussed here. The Prosecution contend that intentions of aggressive war became apparent from that meeting. Did you have any knowledge of that meeting?

SCHACHT: What was the date, please?

DR. DIX: 27 May 1936.

SCHACHT: No. I was present during that conference and I see nothing in the entire document pointing to an aggressive war. I have studied the document very carefully.

DR. DIX: It has furthermore been stated against you what is contained in the report of Ambassador Bullitt, Document Number L-151, Exhibit USA-70, dated 23 November 1937. You have heard, of course, that the Prosecution are also drawing the conclusion from that report that there were aggressive intentions on Hitler’s part. Will you please make a statement about that?

SCHACHT: I see nothing in the entire report to the effect that Hitler was about to start an aggressive war. I was simply talking about Hitler’s intentions to bring about an Anschluss of Austria, if possible, and to give the Sudeten Germans autonomy if possible. Neither of those two actions would be aggressive war, and apart from that, Mr. Bullitt says the following with reference to me in his report about this conversation. I quote: “Schacht then went on to speak of the absolute necessity for doing something to produce peace in Europe....”

DR. DIX: The memorandum of this conversation is also contained in my document book as Exhibit Number Schacht-22. It is on Page 64 of the English text and Page 57 of the German text.

We shall now have to deal in greater detail with your alleged knowledge of Hitler’s intentions to start war. First of all, speaking generally, did Hitler ever, as far as you know...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I asked Dr. Dix if he would object if the Tribunal would allow me, since he is passing to a new point, to mention the question of the Raeder documents. I had a discussion with Dr. Siemers. There are still some outstanding points, and we should be grateful if the Tribunal would hear us this afternoon, if possible, because the translating division is waiting for the Raeder documents to get on with their translations.

THE PRESIDENT: How long do you think it will take, Sir David?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Not more than a half hour, My Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: If the translation department are waiting, perhaps we had better do it at 2 o’clock.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.

THE PRESIDENT: If it is only going to take a half hour. It isn’t likely, I suppose, to take more than that?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I don’t think it will take more than that.

THE PRESIDENT: We will do that at 2 o’clock, and now we will adjourn.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please Your Lordship, the Tribunal should have in front of them a statement of our objections to certain of the documents, arranged in six groups. Attached to that sheet they will find an English summary of the documents, presenting shortly the contents of each one of them. My Lord, with regard to the first group, might I make two erasures from our objection to Number 19, which has been allowed in the case of Schacht, and if I understand Dr. Siemers correctly he doesn’t press for Number 76.

Now, My Lord, the others in that group:

Number 9 is a series of quotations from Lersner’s book on _Versailles_.

Number 10, the quotation from a book by the German left-wing publicist, Thomas Mann.

Number 17 is the _Failure of a Mission_, by Nevile Henderson.

Number 45 is a quotation from a book of Mr. Churchill’s.

Number 47 is the report on a complaint to Lord Halifax about an article in _News Chronicle_ criticizing Hitler.

My Lord, Number 66 is rather different. If the Tribunal would be good enough to look at it, it is a report by a German lawyer, Dr. Mosier I think his name should be, who is an authority on international law, dealing with the Norway action. Dr. Siemers has been, of course, absolutely frank with me and he said that it would be convenient to him to have this, which is really a legal argument, embodied in his document book. Of course, that is not really the purpose of these document books; but, of course, it is a matter for the Tribunal, and we felt we had to draw attention to it.

Then, My Lord, Number 76 comes out.

Numbers 93 to 96 are quotations from Soviet newspapers.

Number 101 is a quotation from Havas, the French News Agency.

Numbers 102 to 107 are minor orders relating to the Low Countries which, the Prosecution submit, have no evidential value.

Then in the second group, there are a number of documents which, the Prosecution submit, are not relevant to any of the issues in the case.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you didn’t deal with Number 109, did you?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, My Lord, it is on the second line. That is another legal argument, the effect of the war on the legal position of Iceland, which is a quotation from the _British Journal of Information in Public Law and International La_w.

THE PRESIDENT: All right.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the second group, the Prosecution submit, is irrelevant.

Number 22 is a Belgian decree of 1937 dealing with the possible evacuation of the civil population in time of war.

Number 39 is a French document of the Middle East.

Numbers 63 and 64 are two speeches, one by Mr. Emery and another by Mr. Churchill, dealing with the position in Greece at the end of 1940, some two months after the beginning of the Italian campaign against Greece.

Number 71 is an undated directive with regard to the study of routes in Belgium, which doesn’t seem to us to have any evidential importance.

Number 76 comes out as the _Altmark_.

THE PRESIDENT: Did you say 76 came out?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, that is the _Altmark_. It is the same one that is in Number 71. I am sorry, My Lord, it should have been marked out.

Number 99 is the minutes of the ninth meeting of the combined Cabinet Council on the 27th of April 1940, and it deals with a suggestion of M. Reynaud with regard to the Swedish ore mines. As it was long after the Norway campaign and it was never, of course, acted upon in Norway, it seems to us to have no relevance for this Trial.

Numbers 102 to 107 I have dealt with under one. They have certain very small unimportant memoranda relating to the Low Countries.

Number 112 is a French document in which Paul Reynaud quotes a statement from Mr. Churchill that he will fight on to the end, which again doesn’t seem of much importance in 1946.

Now, My Lord, the next group are documents which were rejected by the Tribunal when applied for by the Defendant Ribbentrop. The first two deal with British rearmament and the others with the Balkans and Greece. The Tribunal will probably remember the group which they did reject in the Ribbentrop application; and the fourth group are other documents of the same series as those rejected by the Tribunal in the case of the Defendant Von Ribbentrop. The fifth group are really objectionable on the _tu quoque_ basis. I think they are entirely French documents which deal with proposals in a very tentative stage and which were arranged, but never followed out, with regard to the destruction of oil fields or the blocking of the Danube in the Middle East. My Lord, they are documents dated in the spring of 1940 and, as I say, they deal with the most tentative stages and were never put into operation. The plans were never in operation.

The sixth group are documents dealing with Norway, which were captured after the occupation of France. As I understand Dr. Siemers’ argument, it is not suggested that these documents were within the knowledge of the defendants at the time that they carried out the aggression against Norway; but it is stated that they had other information. Of course, as to their own information, we have not made any objection at all; and that these documents might be argued to be corroborative of their agents’ reports. Actually, as is shown by Document Number 83, to which we make no objection, they also deal with tentative proposals which were not put into effect and were not proceeded with; but in the submission of the Prosecution, the important matter must be what was within the knowledge of the defendants before the 9th of April 1940; and it is irrelevant to go into a large number of other documents which are only arguably consistent with the information which the defendants stated they had.

My Lord, I tried to deal with them very shortly because I made a promise to the Tribunal on the time, but I hope that I have indicated very clearly what our objections were.

DR. WALTER SIEMERS (Counsel for Defendant Raeder): Your Honors, it is extremely difficult to define my position with reference to so many documents, especially since I know that these documents have not yet been translated and that the contents, in the main, are therefore not known to those concerned. Therefore, I might point out that there is a certain danger in treating documents in this way. In part they are basic elements of my defense.

Therefore, I should like to state now that in dealing with these documents I shall be compelled, in order to give the reasons for the relevancy of this evidence, to point out those passages which I shall not need to read separately into the record, for as soon as the document book is ready they will be known to the Tribunal and can be read there.

I shall follow the order as outlined by Sir David. First of all, the first group, Document Numbers 9 and 10. The note submitted by Sir David to the Tribunal points out that the submission of these documents conflicts with the ruling given by the Tribunal on 29 March. In reply I should like to point out that this opinion of the Prosecution is an error. The ruling of the Tribunal said that no documents might be submitted concerning the injustice of the Versailles Treaty and the pressure arising from it. These documents do not concern the injustice and the pressure; rather they serve to give a few examples of the subjective attitude of a man like Noske, who was a Social Democrat and certainly did not want to conduct any wars of aggression. A few other statements in Numbers 9 and 10 show the thought of the Government and the ruling class at that time in regard to defensive measures and the fear that in case of an attack on the part of Poland, for instance, the German Armed Forces might be too weak. These are facts pure and simple; and I give you my express assurance that I shall not quote any sentences which might introduce a polemic. Moreover, I need this mainly as a basis for my final pleading.

Number 17 is a very brief excerpt from the book by Henderson, _Failure of a Mission_, written in 1940. I believe there are no objections to my quoting about 15 lines, if I wish to use them in my final pleading in order to show that Henderson, who knew Germany well, still believed in 1940 that he had to recognize certain positive good points in the regime at that time; and I believe that the conclusion is justified that one cannot expect that a German military commander should be more sceptical than the British Ambassador at that time.

Then we turn to Document Number 45. It is true this document is taken from a book by Churchill; but it deals with a fact which I should like to prove, the fact that already many years before World War I there existed a British Committee for Defense. In the table of contents which Sir David has submitted, the word “Reichsverteidigungsausschuss” is used, and I therefore conclude that this is a mistake on the part of the Prosecution who took it to mean a German Reich Defense Committee; that is not correct. This document shows how it came about that the Prosecution wrongly overestimated the importance of the German Reich Defense Committee, as the Prosecution naturally compared it with the British Committee for Defense, which went very much further in its activities.

Number 47 is evidence to show that when the German Embassy pointed out that an extremely scathing article on Hitler had appeared in the paper _News Chronicle_, Lord Halifax pointed out in reply that it was not possible for him to exert any influence on the newspaper. I should merely like to compare this with the fact that the Prosecution made it appear as though Raeder had had something to do with the regrettable article in the _Völkischer Beobachter_: “Churchill sank the _Athenia_.” Raeder was no more connected with that article than Lord Halifax with the article in the _News Chronicle_ and was unfortunately even more powerless, as far as this article was concerned, than the British Government.

Number 66 deals with the opinion given by Dr. Mosier, a specialist on international law, an opinion on the Norway action in very compressed form, as the Tribunal will surely admit. The Tribunal will also concede that in my defense of the Norway action I must speak at length about the underlying principles of international law. The underlying principles of international law are not an altogether simple matter. I have nothing against presenting this myself in all necessary detail. I was merely guided by the thought that the Tribunal have asked again and again that we save time. I believe that we can save considerable time if this statement of opinion is granted me, so that I shall not have to cite numerous excerpts and authors in detail in order to show the exact legal justification. I could then perhaps deal with the legal questions in half an hour, whereas without this statement of opinion it is utterly impossible for me to treat such a problem in half an hour. If the Prosecution do not object to more time being taken up, then I do not object if the document is denied me. I will merely have to take the consequences.

Number 76 has meanwhile been crossed out, that is, it is granted me by the Prosecution.

Numbers 93 to 96 are excerpts on statements of the official Moscow papers, _Isvestia_ and _Pravda_. These statements prove that, at least at that time, Soviet opinion regarding the legality of the German action in Norway coincided with the German opinion of that time. If the Tribunal think that these very brief quotations should not be admitted as documents, I would not be too insistent, since at this point in the proceedings I shall in any case be compelled to discuss it. The Tribunal will remember that at that time Germany and Russia were friends, and Soviet opinion on a purely legal problem should, at any rate, be considered as having a certain significance.

Then, Number 101; I beg your pardon, Sir David, but if I am not mistaken Dr. Braun said an hour and a half ago that Number 101 is to be rejected. Very well, then, Numbers 101 to 107. The action against Norway, as I have already said, involved a problem of international law. It involves the problem of whether one country may violate the neutrality of another country when it can be proved that another belligerent nation likewise intends to violate the neutrality of the afore-mentioned neutral state. When presenting my evidence I shall show that Grossadmiral Raeder, in the autumn of 1939, received all sorts of reports to the effect that the Allies were planning to take under their own protection the territorial waters of Norway, that is, to land in Norway, in order to have Norwegian bases. When I deal with the Norway documents, I shall return to this point. I should like to say at this point that it is necessary to explain and to prove that the legal attitude taken by the Allies to the question of the possible violation of the neutrality of a country was in the years 1939 and 1940 entirely the same as the attitude of the Defendant Raeder in the case of Norway at the same time.

Therefore it is necessary not only to deal with Norway; but also to show that this was a basic conception, which can readily be proved by reference to parallel cases on the strength of these documents. These parallel cases deal in the first place with the plans of the Allies with respect to the Balkans, and secondly with the plans of the Allies with respect to the Caucasian oil fields.

Your Honors, it is by no means my intention, as Sir David has suggested, to use these documents from the _tu quoque_ point of view, from the point of view that the defendant has done something, which the Allies have also done or wanted to do. I am concerned only with a judgment of the Defendant Raeder’s actions from the legal point of view. One can understand such actions only when the entire matter is brought to light.

It is my opinion—and in addition to this I should like to refer to the statement of Dr. Mosier’s opinion, Exhibit Raeder-66—that this cannot be made the subject of an accusation.

We are concerned, Your Honors, with the right of self-preservation as recognized in principle by international law. In this connection I should like...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, we don’t want to go into these matters in great detail, you know, at this stage. If you state what your reasons are in support and state them shortly, we shall be able to consider the matter.

DR. SIEMERS: I am very sorry that I have to go into these details, but if through the objection of the Prosecution the principles...

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal do not wish to hear you in detail. I have said that the Tribunal do not wish to hear you in detail.

DR. SIEMERS: I merely ask that the Tribunal take into consideration the fact that this concerns the principle of international law laid down by Kellogg himself in 1928, namely, the right of self-preservation, or “the right of self-defense.” For that reason 1 should like to adduce these documents showing that just as the Allies acted quite correctly according to this principle, so also did the Defendant Raeder.

Document Number 22 is next. I have given various statements of principle which apply to a large number of the remaining documents, so that I can refer to the statements I have already made. These statements also apply to Documents Numbers 22 and 39.

As far as Documents Numbers 63 and 64 are concerned, I should like to point out that these documents deal with Greece; and not only these two, but also a later group of perhaps 10 or 12 documents, with which I should like to deal very briefly.

As far as Greece is concerned, the situation is as follows:

I must admit that I was more than surprised that the Prosecution objected to these documents, about 14 in all. In Document Number C-12, Exhibit Number GB-226, the Prosecution accuse Raeder of having decreed on 30 December 1939; and I quote, “Greek merchantmen in the prohibited area declared by the United States and England are to be treated as enemy ships.” The accusation would be justified, if Greece had not behaved in such a manner that Raeder had to resort to this order.

If the documents concerning Greece which show that Greece did not strictly keep to her neutrality are struck out, then I cannot bring any counterevidence. I do not believe that it is the intention of the Prosecution to restrict my presentation of evidence in this way.

These are all documents which date back to this time and which show that Greece put her merchantmen at the disposal of England who was at war with Germany. Therefore they could be treated as enemy ships.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I would like to say that I should have told the Tribunal I would make no objection to Documents Numbers 53 and 54, because they do deal with the chartering of Greek steamers by the British Government.

THE PRESIDENT: But you made no objection to them; you didn’t object to Numbers 53 or 54.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wanted to make clear that I don’t object to them.

THE PRESIDENT: There is no objection on the paper. What you are dealing with, Dr. Siemers, is 63 and 64, not 53 and 54?

Oh, I beg your pardon, I see it further on. Yes, I see; will you please strike that out.

DR. SIEMERS: There is no objection to Numbers 53 and 54?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, no objection. My Lord, my friend was dealing with the Greek fleet.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes; I beg your pardon, I misheard.

DR. SIEMERS: The same things, as I have already stated regarding Documents Numbers 101 to 107, apply also to Document Number 71.

Number 99 belongs really to Group 6, to the Norwegian documents; and I should like to refer to these collectively and then refer again later to Number 99. All these documents concern Norway, that is, the planning by the Allies with respect to Norway. These documents deal positively with the planning of the landing in Narvik, the landing in Stavanger, the landing in Bergen, and the absolute necessity of having Norwegian bases. The documents mention that Germany should not be allowed to continue getting ore supplies from Sweden. They also deal in some measure with Finland. There are likewise documents which support the same plan after the Finnish-Russian war had already been concluded.

I should like to quote from these documents to prove their relevancy. Since the Tribunal has told me that I cannot do that, I ask that these brief references be considered sufficient. The facts contained in these documents agree, point for point, with those reports which Grossadmiral Raeder received from September 1939 until March 1940 from the Intelligence Service of the German Wehrmacht headed by Admiral Canaris. These plans agree with the information which Raeder received during the same 6 months through the Naval Attaché in Oslo, Korvettenkapitän Schreiber, and with the information which he received in a letter from Admiral Carls at the end of September 1939.

The information from these three sources caused the Defendant Raeder to point out the great danger involved were Norway to fall into the hands of the Allies, which would mean that Germany had lost the war. It is, therefore, a purely strategic consideration. The occupation of Norway did not, as contended by the British Prosecution, have anything to do with the prestige or desire for conquest but was concerned solely with these positive pieces of information.

I must therefore prove, first of all, that the Defendant Raeder did receive this information and, secondly, that these reports were objective.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, you are dealing with Document Number 99, are you not?

DR. SIEMERS: Yes, 99, and all of Group 6.

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know what you mean by Group 6; 99 is in Group B.

DR. SIEMERS: The group under the letter “F,” which Sir David called Group 6, the last on the page.

THE PRESIDENT: The objection of the Prosecution to that document was that it was a document of the 27th of April 1940, at a time after Germany had invaded Norway. You haven’t said anything about that.

DR. SIEMERS: I wanted to avoid dealing with each document singly, because I believe that these can be treated generally. However, in this specific case...

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t want you to deal with each document separately. I thought you were dealing with Document Number 99. If you can deal with them in groups, by all means do so. However, you are taking up a great deal of the Tribunal’s time.

DR. SIEMERS: This Document Number 99 is the Minutes of the Ninth Meeting of the Supreme Council, that is, the military operational staff of England and France, on 27 April. The heading shows beyond doubt that it was after the occupation of Norway. However, that is only a formal objection. The contents of the document show that at this session the participants discussed the happenings during the period before the occupation, and the most important leaders of the Allies took part in this meeting. Chamberlain, Halifax, Churchill, Sir Samuel Hoare, Sir Alexander Cadogan, _et cetera_ and, on the French side Reynaud, Daladier, Gamelin, and Darlan were present; and these gentlemen discussed the previous plans which, I admit, had misfired because of the German occupation of Norway. But they did discuss about how necessary it was that the iron-ore deposits in Sweden should fall into the hands of the Allies and what was to be done now to prevent Germany’s getting this ore and how the destruction of these iron-ore deposits could be brought about. I believe, therefore, that though this happened at a later date, the train of thought I have presented is of significance.

Then we turn to Document Number 100. This deals with the session of the French War Committee of 9 April 1940, which concerns the same problem: what the Allies had planned and what could be planned now that the report had just come in about the action on the part of Germany.

Documents Numbers 102 to 107 have already been dealt with. For Document Number 110 the same statements apply as for Documents 101 to 107.

Document Number 112 is a document which shows that Churchill, as early as May 1940, expected active intervention on the part of America. I wanted to present this in connection with the accusation raised against the Defendant Raeder, that in the spring of 1941 he was instrumental in bringing about a war against the United States by way of Japan. For me this document is not nearly so important as those basic documents which I have referred to at greater length. Therefore, I leave this completely to the discretion of the Prosecution or the Tribunal.

The next group consists of documents which were turned down in the case of Ribbentrop. I should like to point out that I did not have the opportunity in the Ribbentrop case to define my position as to the justification and relevancy of these documents. Therefore I consider it insufficient simply to state that these documents were refused in the case of Ribbentrop, that the charges against Ribbentrop...

THE PRESIDENT: We have already carefully considered the arguments and have decided those documents were inadmissible.

DR. SIEMERS: I believed that the decision applied only to the Ribbentrop case, since no other point of view was discussed during those proceedings, namely, that of the charges raised against Raeder in which connection it is expressly said in Document C-152 that Raeder brought about the occupation of the whole of Greece. That is an accusation that was not made against Ribbentrop but only against Raeder. How can I refute this accusation if these documents are denied me?

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal know the documents and know the charges against Raeder, and they don’t desire to hear any further argument on it. They will consider the matter.

DR. SIEMERS: I beg the pardon of the Tribunal. Under these circumstances I am compelled to see whether all these documents were covered in Ribbentrop’s case. My notes, as I told the Prosecution this morning, do not agree with the statements of the Prosecution. Perhaps after the session, if I am unable to do so at the moment, I might point out whether or not the documents are identical.

It is really a fact that in Ribbentrop’s case these documents were not presented in their entirety and that the Tribunal therefore does not know them in their entirety. Whether Dr. Horn had marked exactly the same passages as I wish to use, I am not able to say as far as each individual document is concerned. I know only that in the large majority of cases Dr. Horn did not present the entire document because he was presenting it only from the point of view of the Ribbentrop case.

THE PRESIDENT: Presumably you have submitted your extracts to the Prosecution. The Prosecution tell us that those extracts are the same ones that were rejected in Ribbentrop’s case.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, we have only a list of those documents so far. We haven’t seen the extracts.

[_There was a pause in the proceedings while the Prosecution conferred._]

My Lord, I am sorry. I spoke too quickly. We have seen the extracts in German and we haven’t had them translated. We have done the best we could in German.

THE PRESIDENT: 24 and 25, at any rate, are both speeches in English.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, some of them are. I am sorry, My Lord; these are. Your Lordship is quite right.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, as I understand it, Dr. Siemers says that these are not the same passages of evidence, or suggested evidence, as were rejected in Ribbentrop’s case.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I did not do the actual checking myself, but Major Barrington, who checked the Ribbentrop documents, went through these and compared the two, and he gave me that which forms the basis of our note. That is the position. I can’t tell Your Lordship that I have actually checked these myself.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Siemers is telling us that that is untrue?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As I understood Dr. Siemers, he was saying that he didn’t know whether they were the same extracts...

DR. SIEMERS: May I just make one remark in connection with that, please? I am not quite certain that I can say in each specific case which extracts were contained in the Ribbentrop case, but they are not the same. I know for certain that they are not the same because in order to relieve the work of the Translation Division I compared the numbers and in the few cases in which they were the same I told the Translation Division that these documents were identical so that they would not be translated a second time. But I am sorry to say that a large number of the documents were not the same, as they were asked for by Dr. Horn and Ribbentrop from a completely different point of view.

I might also point out that the numbers under Group D which are enumerated here as Ribbentrop Documents Numbers 29, 51, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, although I made every effort to find them, could not be found in the Ribbentrop Document Book. And the list does not show which numbers they should be in the Ribbentrop Document Book.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that is not suggested. What is said is that they are in the same series which deals with the same subject—that is, the question of Greece and the Balkans—as those documents which the Tribunal ruled out in the case of Ribbentrop.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Siemers, I think the best course would be for you to go through these documents this afternoon under the heading “C” and find out whether they are the same ones rejected in Ribbentrop’s case; and if they are not, indicate exactly in what they differ from the documents rejected in Ribbentrop’s case, so as to show they have some relevance to your case; and we shall expect to have that by 5 o’clock.

Now will you go on with the others?

DR. SIEMERS: May I perhaps make one remark about what Sir David said regarding group “D”? They were not objected to because they have already been mentioned in Ribbentrop’s case; but only because they deal with the same subject matter, that is true. The same subject matter, namely, Greece, is dealt with; and I can only reply that the Prosecution have charged the Defendant Raeder in Document C-152 with having aimed at, and brought about, the occupation of the whole of Greece. The facts concerning this statement of three lines I can present only if I am allowed some documents referring to Greece and only if these are not refused on the grounds that the documents concerning Greece were turned down quite generally in Ribbentrop’s case.

Now, I come to group “E” which begins with Document 26. The same statements apply which I have already set forth in regard to Documents Numbers 101 to 107. The attacks planned by the Allies on the oil regions in neutral Romania and in the neutral Caucasus—as I should like to remark in parenthesis—have already been dealt with in these proceedings. The Tribunal will remember that I asked Göring during his examination about entries in Jodl’s diary pertaining to this question and he has given information about the reports received by Germany, on Pages 6031 and 6033 of the transcript of 18 March (Volume IX, Pages 402-404). This testimony too concerns only the subjective side, that is, what was known by Germany. I must prove that the objective side, the fact that this had actually been planned, agrees exactly with the subjective side, that is, with these reports. These documents, Numbers 26, 30 to 32, 36, 37, 39, 40 to 44, are to prove that. Then comes Number 99 which has already been dealt with, which seems to be here in duplicate; Number 101, and Number 110 which also seem to be duplicates.

I turn now to Group 6, which is supposed to be irrelevant, dealing with the attack on Norway. I have already, on principle, set forth my reasons and I beg the Tribunal not to deny me these documents under any circumstances. If I am not granted these documents, I shall simply not be in a position to present evidence in a reasonable manner without telling everything myself. I can present proof in regard to a question of such importance only if documents are granted me just as they are granted the Prosecution. But if all the documents, practically all the documents concerning this question are refused, then I do not know how I am to treat such a question. And I believe that the Tribunal will wish to assist me in this matter.

I am requesting this especially for the following reasons: When I gave my reasons for wanting to present this particular evidence, I asked that those files of the British Admiralty be brought in, which dealt with the preparations and planning regarding Scandinavia, that is, Norway. Sir David did not object at that time but said he would have to consult the British Admiralty. The Tribunal decided accordingly and granted my application. In the meantime the British Admiralty has answered, and I assume that Sir David will agree to my reading the answer which has been put at my disposal. This answer is as follows—it concerns, if I may say that in advance...

THE PRESIDENT: We have had the answer, I think, have we not? We have had the answer and transmitted it to you.

DR. SIEMERS: Thank you very much. From this reply it can be seen that the files will not be submitted, that I cannot get the necessary approval. It can also be seen that certain facts which will be important for my presentation of evidence will be admitted by the British Admiralty; but in reality I am not in a position to prove anything by means of documents. Since I am unable to make use of this evidence, I ask at least to be allowed the other means of presenting evidence, that is, the documents contained in the German White Books. These are documents recognized as being correct. In all cases they are facsimiles. They can be carefully examined and I believe...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, we are dealing with your application for particular documents. We are not dealing with any general argument or general criticism that you have to make. We are only hearing you in answer to certain objections on behalf of the British Prosecution.

DR: SIEMERS: Your Honor, unless I am very much mistaken—in which case you will pleas correct me—Sir David, with a few exceptions, defined his position regarding these documents under “F”—this is a large number, from 59 to 91 with some omissions—as a whole and not his position regarding each individual document. But I have to say the same thing to practically each document and asked only that I be granted those documents as a whole, for I cannot make headway without these documents...

THE PRESIDENT: You were not referring to these documents. You were referring to the fact that the British Admiralty was not prepared to disclose its files to you. It has nothing to do with these documents at all.

DR. SIEMERS: I believe I have been misunderstood, Your Honors. I have already stated very clearly why I need these documents for my presentation of evidence regarding the Norway action. Beyond that I said merely that if these documents are not granted me, then I cannot present any evidence. I am deprived of it. I asked the Tribunal merely to take into consideration the fact that the documents from London, which I had originally counted on, are not at my disposal. And I do not know why this request, which I am submitting to the Tribunal and which is only in explanation of my previous statements, is being taken amiss by the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Is that all you have to say?

DR. SIEMERS: I have now finished, Your Honors. It is not at all my intention to read all these documents or to spend too much time on them. I believe that if I am granted these documents, the presentation of evidence will be much easier, for these are groups of documents which show the chronological development of certain plans; and if I have the 5th, 6th or 7th document, then I need not read each one. But if I am granted just one document, I will be put in an extremely difficult position and will have to speak in greater detail than I would if I could simply refer to these documents.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider it.

Now, Dr. Dix.

DR. DIX: [_Turning to the defendant._] Now, we come to the whole question of your alleged knowledge of the direct war objectives of Hitler. You have already mentioned in a general way that Hitler never spoke about war to you. Have you anything to add to this?

SCHACHT: No.

DR. DIX: You also touched upon the question of the sincerity of his peaceful assurances and his disarmament proposals. Have you anything to add to that?

SCHACHT: No, at the beginning I believed that.

DR. DIX: And did the various members of the Cabinet ever speak to you about warlike intentions?

SCHACHT: Never did I hear anything from any of my fellow colleagues in the Reich Cabinet which could lead me to believe that anyone had the intention of going to war or would welcome it if Germany were to start a war.

DR. DIX: Now, we turn to your own attitude towards the war. You already indicated your general attitude when you spoke about your philosophy as a pacifist. I believe, therefore, that it is more expedient if I read from my document book the opinion of a third person, one who knows you very well, the former member of the Reichsbank Directorate, Huelse. It is the Schacht Document 37-C, Page 160 of the German text, and 168 of the English text. It is an affidavit. And there, beginning with Paragraph 2, Huelse says:

“I recall several chance talks with Dr. Schacht during the years 1935 to 1939 about war and rearmament. In these talks he always expressed his aversion to any war and any warlike conduct. He held the firm opinion that even to the conqueror war brings only disadvantages and that a new European war would, on the whole, be a crime against culture and humanity. He hoped for a long period of peace for Germany, as she needed it more than other countries in order to improve and stabilize her unstable economic situation.

“To my knowledge, until the beginning of 1938, Dr. Schacht at meetings of the Reichsbank Board of Directors and in private conversations on the subject of armament always spoke only of defense measures. I believe I can recall that he told me in the middle of 1938 that Hitler’s provocative action against Austria and the Sudeten country was worse than thoughtless from the military point of view.

“He said that Germany had undertaken only a defensive armament, which would prove absolutely inadequate as a defense in case of attack by one of the big powers, a possibility with which Hitler had to reckon. He said that he had never heard that the Wehrmacht was in any way designed or armed for an aggressive war.

“When the war did break out and spread more and more, he said repeatedly that he had greatly erred in his judgment of Hitler’s personality; he had hoped for a long time that Hitler would develop into a real statesman who, after the experience of the World War I, would avoid any war.”

You have already touched upon the question of an annexation of Austria and given your general opinion. I ask you now to make a concrete statement about the Anschluss after it had actually taken place and especially about the manner in which this Anschluss was carried out.

SCHACHT: That this Anschluss would come at some time we Germans all knew. As for the various political negotiations which took place between Hitler, Schuschnigg and others, I naturally was as little informed as were the other Cabinet Ministers, with the probable exception of Göring and Ribbentrop and perhaps one or two more. The actual Anschluss in March was a complete surprise to us, not the fact but the date. A great surprise and we, at any rate my acquaintances and I myself, were completely surprised.

DR. DIX: How did you judge the manner, the nature and development of this Anschluss?

SCHACHT: I believe that much can be said about the manner. What we heard subsequently and what I have learned in these proceedings is certainly not very gratifying, but I believe that it would have had very little practical influence on the Anschluss itself and the course of events. The whole thing was more of a demonstration to the outside world, similar perhaps to the marching into the Rhineland; but it had no great effect in my opinion on the course of the negotiations. I am speaking now of the marching in of the troops. This march was more or less a festive reception.

DR. DIX: The Prosecution have pointed out that in March 1938 you regulated the relation of the schilling to the mark for the event of a possible Anschluss, and by this the Prosecution obviously want to prove that you had previous knowledge of this action. Will you tell us your position as to this?

SCHACHT: The fact to which the Prosecution refer is a communication from a Lieutenant Colonel Wiedemann. March 11, at about 3 o’clock in the afternoon—I believe I remember that but I cannot say whether it was by telephone or in person—someone, it may have been Lieutenant Colonel Wiedemann, inquired of me how the purchasing power for the troops in Austria was to be regulated if German troops should march into Austria, purely as a matter of currency policy, and whether it was necessary to have any regulation prescribed. I told him that of course everything had to be paid for, everything that the troops might buy there, and that the rate of exchange; if they paid in schillings and not in marks, would be 1 mark to 2 schillings. That was the rate which obtained at the time, which remained fairly steady and was the recognized ratio of the schilling to the mark. The fact that in the afternoon of the 11th I was approached about this matter is the best proof that I had no previous knowledge of these matters.

DR. DIX: The Prosecution further consider it an accusation against you that in your speech to the Austrian National Bank after the marching in of the troops, you used decidedly National Socialist phraseology and thus welcomed the Anschluss.

Perhaps we can use this opportunity to save time and reply to the accusation made repeatedly by the Prosecution that in speeches, petitions, _et cetera_, you sometimes thought fit to adopt a tone, of which it could perhaps be said that it exuded National Socialist ideas. That has been used as circumstantial evidence against you. Will you please define your position to those arguments and give your reasons for this attitude of yours?

SCHACHT: If I did so in the first years, I did so only in order to remind Party circles and the people of the original program of the National Socialist Party, to which the actual attitude of the Party members and functionaries stood in direct contrast. I always tried to show that the principles which I upheld in many political matters agreed completely with the principles of the National Socialist program as they were stated in the Party program, namely, equal rights for all, the dignity of the individual, esteem for the church, and so forth.

In the later years I also repeatedly used National Socialist phraseology, because from the time of my speech at Königsberg, the contrast between my views and Hitler’s views regarding the Party was entirely clear. And gradually within the Party I got the reputation of being an enemy of the Party, a man whose views were contrary to those of the Party. From that moment on not only the possibility of my co-operation, but also my very existence was endangered; and in such moments, when I saw my activity, my freedom, and my life seriously threatened by the Party I utilized these moments to show by means of an emphatically National Socialist phraseology that I was working entirely within the framework of the traditional policies and that my activity was in agreement with these policies—in order to protect myself against these attacks.

DR. DIX: In other words, recalling the testimony of the witness Gisevius about a remark of Goerdeler’s, you used Talleyrand methods in this case?

SCHACHT: I am not entirely familiar with Talleyrand’s methods, but at any rate I did camouflage myself.

DR. DIX: In this connection I should like to read a passage from the affidavit of Schniewind which has been quoted repeatedly. It is Schacht Number 34. I have often indicated this page. It is Page 118 of the German, Page 126 of the English text. Schniewind says:

“If Schacht on the other hand occasionally made statements, oral or written, which could be construed as signifying that he went a long way in identifying himself with the Hitler regime, these statements were naturally known to us; but what Schacht thought in reality was known to almost every official in the Reichsbank and in the Reich Ministry of Economics, above all, of course, to his closest colleagues.

“On many occasions we asked Dr. Schacht if he had not gone too far in these statements. He always replied that he was under such heavy fire from the Party and the SS that he could camouflage himself only with strong slogans and sly statements.”

I might explain that Schniewind was a high official in the Reich Ministry of Economics, and worked directly under Schacht and with him.

The Prosecution have also referred to an affidavit by Tilly to the effect that you admitted that you thought Hitler capable of aggressive intentions. Will you make a statement about that?

SCHACHT: That affidavit of the British Major Tilly is entirely correct. I told Major Tilly during the preliminary interrogation that in 1938, during the events of the Fritsch affair and afterwards, I had become convinced that Hitler at any rate would not avoid a war at all costs and that possibly he even sought to bring about a war. Looking back I pondered over a number of statements by Hitler and asked myself the reason why Hitler, in the course of the years, had reached the point where he might not avoid a war. And I told Major Tilly that the only reason which I could think of was that looking back I had the impression that Hitler had fallen into the role which necessarily falls to each and every dictator who does not want to relinquish his power in time, namely, that of having to supply his people with some sort of victor’s glory—that that was probably the development of Hitler’s thought.

DR. DIX: That is the same explanation as given by Prince Metternich about Napoleon?

You have already remarked parenthetically that you first became suspicious during the Fritsch affair. The witness Gisevius has described the Fritsch affair to the Tribunal in detail. We do not wish to repeat anything. Therefore, I am asking you only to state in regard to the Fritsch affair anything you might have to say to supplement or to amend Gisevius’ testimony. If that is to take a long time—which I cannot judge—then I might suggest to the Tribunal that we have the recess now, if the Tribunal so desires.

SCHACHT: I have just a brief remark to make.

DR. DIX: A brief remark. Then answer the question briefly.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, if he can do it briefly, we had better have it now.

SCHACHT: It is just a single remark that I should like to add. The account given by Gisevius of the development of the Fritsch affair is, according to my knowledge and my own experience, completely correct in every detail. I have nothing to add to that. I can only confirm it. On the other hand, I should like to refer to a speech of Hitler’s on 20 February 1938 in the Reichstag which contains a remark which even at that time aroused my attention. He said—and I quote this speech from Die Dokumente der Deutschen Politik, of which all copies were available here:

“The changes in the Reich Cabinet and in the military administration on 4 February”—that is, changes which were made following the Fritsch and Blomberg affair—“were for the purpose of achieving within the shortest time that intensification of our military means of power, which the general conditions of the present time indicate as advisable.”

This remark also confirmed my opinion that the change from a peaceful to a military policy on Hitler’s part was becoming obvious; I did not wish to omit reference to this remark which completes the account given by Gisevius.

DR. DIX: This is Exhibit Number Schacht-28 of our document book, Page 81 of the English text, Page 74 of the German text. There this passage is quoted.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will adjourn now for 10 minutes.

[_A recess was taken._]

DR. DIX: [_Turning to the defendant._] Several meetings have been discussed here during which Hitler is said to have spoken directly or indirectly about his war intentions. Did you participate in any such meetings?

SCHACHT: No, not in a single one.

DR. DIX: You disagreed, as you have stated, with Hitler and the Party on many issues. Did you express this disagreement or did you conform to Hitler’s instructions at all times? Can you in particular make statements about your critical attitude, for instance, to the Jewish question, the Church question, the Gestapo question, the Free Mason question, _et cetera_?

SCHACHT: I might say in advance that Hitler never gave me any order or any instructions which would have been in opposition to my inner views and that I also never did anything which was in opposition to my inner convictions. From the very beginning I did not conceal my convictions concerning all these questions which you have mentioned, not only when speaking to my circle of friends and to larger Party circles, but also in addressing the public, and even when speaking to Hitler personally. I have already stated here that as early as the Party purge of 30 June 1934 I called Hitler’s attention to the fact that his actions were illegal.

I refer, furthermore, to a document of which unfortunately only half has been presented by the Prosecution. It is a written report which I personally submitted to Hitler on 3 May 1935. I remember the date very well because it happened during a trial run of the Lloyd Steamer _Scharnhorst_, at which both Hitler and I were present.

On that day I handed him two inter-related memoranda which together formed a unit. In the one half I made it clear that I wanted to stop the unrestrained and constant collections of money by various Party organizations because it seemed to me that the money ought not to be used for Party purposes, particularly Party installations, Party buildings, and the like, but that we urgently needed this money for State expenses which had to be paid and which of course included the rearmament question as well.

The second half of this report dealt with cultural questions. The Defense and I have tried for months to get this second half of the document from the Prosecution, since they had submitted the first half of the document here as evidence. It has not been possible to obtain that second half. I must therefore confine myself to communicating the contents.

I want to say in advance that, of course, I could only bring forward such charges in regard to the mistaken cultural and legal policy of the Party and of Hitler when reasons originating in my own department gave me the excuse to submit these things to Hitler. I stated that very serious harm was being done to my foreign trade policy by the arbitrary and inhuman cultural and legal policy which was being carried out by Hitler. I pointed in particular to the hostile attitude towards the churches and the illegal treatment of the Jews and, furthermore, to the absolute illegality and despotism of the whole Gestapo regime. I remember in that connection that I referred to the British Habeas Corpus Act, which for centuries protected the rights of the individual; and I stated word for word that I considered this Gestapo despotism to be something which would make us despised by the whole world.

Hitler read both parts of this memorandum while still on board the _Scharnhorst_. As soon as he had read it he called me and tried to calm me down by making statements similar to those which he had already made to me in July 1934, when he told me these were still the transitional symptoms of a revolutionary development and that as time went on this would be set right again and disappear.

The events of July 1934 had taught me a lesson, however, and consequently I was not satisfied with this explanation. A few weeks afterwards, on 18 August 1935, I used the occasion of my visit to the Eastern Fair Königsberg to mention these very things in the speech which I had to make there; and here I gave clear expression to the same objections which I had made to Hitler aboard the _Scharnhorst_ at the beginning of May.

I did not talk only about the Church question, the Jewish question, and the question of despotism; I talked also about the Free Masons; and I shall quote just a few sentences from that speech (Exhibit Number Schacht-25), with the permission of the Tribunal. They are very short. I am speaking about people, and I now quote...

DR. DIX: Just one moment. I want to tell the Tribunal that this is the Königsberg speech, which I submitted to the Tribunal this morning as a document.

SCHACHT: I am talking about people and I now quote:

“...people who under cover of darkness heroically smear window panes, who brand as a traitor every German who trades in a Jewish store, who declare every former Free Mason to be a scoundrel, and who in the fight against priests and ministers who talk politics from the pulpit, cannot themselves distinguish between religion and misuse of the pulpit.”

End of quotation, and then another sentence. I quote:

“In accordance with the present legislation and in accordance with the various declarations made by the Führer’s Deputy, the Reich Minister of the Interior, and the Reich Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda (not to mention the Ministry of Economics), Jewish businesses are permitted to carry on their business activities as heretofore.”

End of quotation, and then, in the last sentences, I quote:

“No one in Germany is without rights. According to Point 4 of the National Socialist Party program the Jew can be neither a citizen nor a fellow German. But Point 5 of the Party program provides legislation for him too; that means, he must not be subjected to arbitrary action but to the law.”

I assumed the same attitude on every other further occasion that offered itself.

DR. DIX: One moment, Dr. Schacht; did the regime tolerate this speech?

SCHACHT: It is a good thing that you remind me of that; because in the course of the Gisevius testimony the same question was discussed with reference to the Marburg speech of Herr Von Papen. Since up to then my speeches were not subject to censorship—of course I would not have allowed that—this speech was broadcast by mistake, so to speak, over the Deutschlandsender. In that way the speech was brought to the notice of Propaganda Minister Goebbels, and at once he issued an order prohibiting the publication of the speech in the newspapers. As a result, although the speech was broadcast by the Deutschlandsender it did not appear in any newspaper. But as, fortunately, the Reichsbank had its own printing press which was of course not subject to censorship, I had the speech printed in the Reichsbank printing press; and 250,000 copies of it were distributed to the 400 branches of the Reichsbank throughout the country, and in that manner it became known to the entire population.

DR. DIX: You were going to continue, were you not?

SCHACHT: I wanted to go on and say that on every future opportunity which I could find I always returned to these points. I should like to touch upon only two more things in this connection.

This morning I referred to these things in connection with the letter written by me on 24 December 1935 to the Reich Minister of War, which is Document Number EC-293. I should merely like to add and point out the words, which I shall now quote:

“The economic and legal policy for the treatment of the Jews, the anti-Church activities of certain Party organizations, and the legal despotism associated with the Gestapo are detrimental to our armament program...”

The same attitude can also be seen from the minutes of the so-called “small Ministerial Council” for 12 May 1936, which have been submitted in evidence by the Prosecution. It says in these minutes, and I quote: “Dr. Schacht emphasized openly again and again that a cultural and legal policy must be pursued which does not interfere with economy.”

I want to remark in this connection that, of course, as Minister of Economics I always linked my arguments with the work of the departments under the Minister of Economics. And, as a last example, one of many others which I cannot mention today, there is the speech on the occasion of a celebration for the apprentices at the Berlin Chamber of Artisans on 11 May 1937 which is Exhibit Number Schacht-30. On that occasion I said the following, and I quote:

“No community and, above all, no state can flourish which is not based on legality, order, and discipline.”

And a second sentence, I quote:

“For that reason you must not only respect the right and the law, but you must also act against injustice and unlawful actions everywhere, wherever you find them.”

And because I made known my attitude not only to a close circle but also to a wider public by using every opportunity to voice my views frankly—because of this, a few weeks ago in this court, the Chief of the RSHA, Department III, Security Service, the witness Ohlendorf, in reply to a question, described me as an enemy of the Party, at least since the year 1937-1938. I believe that the Chief of the Security Service, the inland department, should know since he had the task of combating political opponents inside Germany.

DR. DIX: May I point out that the statements made during the meeting of the small Ministerial Council on 12 May 1936 are contained in my document book, Exhibit Schacht-20, Page 57 of the English text, Page 51 of the German text and Schacht’s speech to the Chamber of Industry and Commerce on 12 May 1937...

SCHACHT: [_Interrupting._] You mean Chamber of Artisans.

DR. DIX: I shall refer to that later when I have the proper document; and I now continue.

We have talked about your participation at the Party rallies, and I should merely like to ask you in addition: Did you participate in any other Party functions?

SCHACHT: I do not remember that I ever participated in any other functions of the Party.

DR. DIX: The Indictment charges you, in substance, with using your personal influence and your close connections with the Führer for the aims as set forth. Did you, as far as you know and can judge from your experience, have any influence on the Führer?

SCHACHT: Unfortunately, I never had any influence on the Führer’s actions and decisions. I had influence only insofar as he did not dare to interfere with me in my special financial and economic policies. But this lack of influence of all members of Hitler’s entourage has already been mentioned by various witnesses and so much has been said about it that I think I need not take up the Tribunal’s time with any further statements on that subject.

DR. DIX: What you have just said applies in the main to the question of the influence of the Reich Cabinet, the last meetings of the Reich Cabinet, and so forth. Various witnesses have made statements on that subject. Have you anything new to add?

SCHACHT: I can merely add that on the whole the Reich Cabinet did not have the slightest influence on Hitler, and that from November 1937 on—this has been stated repeatedly—there were no more meetings or consultations of the Cabinet. The Reich Cabinet was an uncorrelated group of politically powerless departmental ministers without the proper professional qualifications.

DR. DIX: I should like to add that the number of the speech to the Chamber of Artisans is Exhibit Number 30, Page 89 of the English text and Page 82 of the German text.

[_Turning to the defendant._] What was the situation regarding rearmament? Whose will was decisive and authoritative as regards the extent of rearmament?

SCHACHT: I am without any basis for judgment as far as that is concerned. But I have no doubt that Hitler’s will, here too, was the sole decisive and authoritative factor.

DR. DIX: That is to say, you had no influence other than that of the credit-giver?

SCHACHT: Within my Ministry, insofar as I administered this Ministry, I did nothing for which I would not assume responsibility myself.

DR. DIX: Did you speak to prominent foreigners about your lack of influence on Hitler?

SCHACHT: In this connection I recall a conversation with Ambassador Bullitt in November 1937. This conversation with Ambassador Bullitt has already been mentioned in some other connection, and Ambassador Bullitt’s memorandum has been presented in evidence to the Tribunal by the Prosecution. I merely refer to the sentence which refers to me, and I quote:

“He”—that is to say Schacht—“prefaced his remarks by saying that he himself today was ‘completely without influence on that man’”—meaning Hitler. “He seemed to regard himself as politically dead and to have small respect for ‘that man.’”

That was said in November 1937. But if I am permitted to add to this, I want to point out that my foreign friends were kept constantly informed about my position and my entire activity as regards the directing of public affairs in Germany, as I have already mentioned once before. This will be seen on later occasions when various instances are mentioned.

DR. DIX: This morning I submitted Exhibit Number Schacht-22, Page 64 of the English text.

[_Turning to the defendant._] And now a few special questions regarding your position as Minister of Economics. You have already made statements regarding the obtaining of foreign raw materials, that is, you have quoted appropriate passages. Could these not be substituted by home products in your opinion?

SCHACHT: A portion of such raw materials could certainly be replaced by home products. We had learned in the meantime how to produce a large number of new materials which we did not know about before...

DR. DIX: Please be brief.

SCHACHT: ...to produce them synthetically. But a considerable part could not be replaced in that way and could be obtained only through foreign trade.

DR. DIX: And what was your attitude towards the question of self-sufficiency?

SCHACHT: As far as self-sufficiency was concerned I believe that, if at a reasonable cost, without undue expenditure, which would have meant a waste of German public funds and German manpower, certain synthetic materials could be produced in Germany, then one should do so, but that apart from this the maintenance of foreign trade was an absolute necessity for economic reasons, and that it was even more necessary for reasons of international cultural relations so that nations might live together. I always regarded the isolation of nations as a great misfortune, just as I have always regarded commerce as the best means of bringing about international understanding.

DR. DIX: Who was the exponent in the Reich Cabinet of the self-sufficiency principle?

SCHACHT: As far as I know, the whole idea of self-sufficiency, which was then formulated in the Four Year Plan, originated with Hitler alone; after Göring was commissioned with the direction of the Four Year Plan, then Göring too, of course, represented that line of thought.

DR. DIX: Did you express your contradictory views to Göring and Hitler?

SCHACHT: I think it is clear from the record that I did so at every opportunity.

DR. DIX: One incidental question: You will remember that Göring exclaimed, “I should like to know where the ‘No men’ are.”

I want to ask you now, do you claim this honorary title of “No man” for yourself? I remind you particularly of your letter of November 1942.

SCHACHT: On every occasion when I was no longer in a position to do what my inner conviction demanded, I said, “No.” I was not content to be silent in the face of the many misdeeds committed by the Party. In every case I expressed my disapproval of these things, personally, officially, and publicly. I said “No” to all those things. I blocked credits. I opposed an excessive rearmament. I talked against the war and I took steps to prevent the war. I do not know to whom else this honorary title of “No man” might apply if not to me.

DR. DIX: Did you not swear an oath of allegiance to Hitler?

SCHACHT: I did not swear an oath of allegiance to a certain Herr Hitler. I swore allegiance to Adolf Hitler as the head of the State of the German people, just as I did not swear allegiance to the Kaiser or to President Ebert or to President Hindenburg, except in their capacity as head of the State; in the same way I did not swear an oath to Adolf Hitler. The oath of allegiance which I did swear to the head of the German State does not apply to the person of the head of the State; it applies to what he represents, the German nation. Perhaps I might add something in this connection. I would never keep an oath of allegiance to a perjurer and Hitler has turned out to be a hundredfold perjurer.

DR. DIX: Göring has made extremely detailed explanations regarding the Four Year Plan, its origin, its preparation, technical opposition by you, and the consequences you took because of this opposition. Therefore we can be brief and deal only with new material, if you have something new to say. Have you anything to add to Göring’s statements or do you disagree on points which you remember or about views held?

SCHACHT: I gather from Göring’s statements that he has described conditions perfectly correctly and I myself have nothing at all to add unless you have something special in mind.

DR. DIX: According to your impressions and the experience you had, when did Hitler realize that you were an obstacle in the way of a speedy and extensive rearmament? Did he acknowledge your economic arguments? Was he satisfied with your policy or not?

SCHACHT: At that time, in 1936, when the Four Year Plan was introduced in September I could not tell what Hitler’s inner attitude to me was in regard to these questions of economic policy. I might say that it was clear that after my speech at Königsberg in August 1935 he mistrusted me. But his attitude to my activities in the field of economic policy was something which I was not yet sure of in 1936. The fact that I had not in any way participated in the preparation of the Four Year Plan but heard about it quite by surprise during the Party Rally and that, quite unexpectedly, Hermann Göring and not the Minister of Economics was appointed head of the Four Year Plan, as I heard for the first time at the Party Rally in September 1936—these facts naturally made it clear to me that Hitler, as far as economic policy with reference to the entire rearmament program was concerned, did not have that degree of confidence in me which he thought necessary. Subsequently, here in this prison, my fellow Defendant Speer showed me a memorandum which he received from Hitler on the occasion of his taking over the post of Minister and which, curiously enough, deals in great detail with the Four Year Plan and my activities, and is dated August 1936. In August 1936 Hitler himself dictated this memorandum which has been shown to me in prison by my fellow Defendant Speer, and I assume that if I read a number of brief quotations from it with the permission of...

DR. DIX: I just want to give an explanation to the Tribunal. We received the original of this memorandum about three weeks ago from the Camp Commander of the Camp Dustbin through the kind mediation of the Prosecution. We then handed it in for translation so that we might submit it now. But the translation has not yet been completed. I shall submit the entire memorandum under a new exhibit number when I receive it.

THE PRESIDENT: Has any application been made in respect to it?

DR. DIX: No application has been made as yet. I wanted...

THE PRESIDENT: Which memorandum? Who drew it up?

DR. DIX: It is a Hitler memorandum of the year 1936, of which there exist three copies; and one of them was in the Camp Dustbin. This copy arrived here a fortnight or three weeks ago after we had discussed our document books with the Prosecution. I intended to submit the translation of the Hitler memorandum today and at the same time to ask that this be admitted in evidence, but unfortunately I am not in a position to do so because the translation is not yet ready. My colleague, Professor Kraus, was in fact told that it has been mislaid.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, let the defendant go on, and you can submit the document in evidence and a translation afterwards.

DR. DIX: Very well. The defendant has a copy and he will quote the most important, very brief passages.

SCHACHT: I shall quote very brief passages. Hitler says in this memorandum, among other things, and I quote:

“It is, above all, not the task of State economic institutions to rack their brains about methods of production. This does not concern the Ministry of Economics at all.”

The Ministry of Economics was under me, and this is therefore a reproach for me.

A further quotation:

“It is furthermore essential that German iron production be increased to the utmost. The objection that we are not in a position to produce the same cheap raw iron from German ore, which has only 26 percent of iron content, as from the 45 percent Swedish ores, is unimportant... The objection that in this case all the German smelting works would have to be reconstructed is also irrelevant; and, in any case, this is none of the business of the Ministry of Economics.”

As is apparent from the statement, I had explained that from 26 percent ore one could produce steel only at costs twice or three times those at which one could produce steel from 45 percent ore. And I explained further that, in order to use 26 percent ore, one would have to have completely different plants from those using 45 percent ore. Herr Hitler states that this is none of the business of the Ministry of Economics, and that, of course, means Herr Schacht.

There is one last, very brief quotation. I quote:

“I want to emphasize in this connection that in these tasks I see the only possible economic mobilization and not in the curbing of the armament industry...”

That statement, too, is directed, of course, against my policy.

DR. DIX: We have now reached the stage of tension of technical differences between you and Göring, the tension between you and Hitler regarding your functions as Minister of Economics. What were your thoughts at the time about resigning from your office as Minister of Economics? Was it possible for you to resign? Please do not repeat anything that Lammers and other witnesses have already told us about the impossibility of resigning. Please talk only about your own special case and what you yourself did.

SCHACHT: First of all, I tried to continue my own economic policy, in spite of the fact that Göring as head of the Four Year Plan tried, of course, as time went on to take over as many of the tasks concerned with economic policy as possible. But the very moment Göring encroached on my rights as Minister of Economics I used it as an opportunity to force my release from the Ministry of Economics. That was at the beginning of August 1937.

At the time I told Hitler very briefly the reason, namely, that if I was to assume responsibility for economic policy, then I would also have to be in command. But if I was not in command, then I did not wish to assume responsibility. The fight for my resignation, fought by me at times with very drastic measures, lasted approximately two and a half months until eventually Hitler had to decide to grant me the desired release in order to prevent the conflict from becoming known to the public more than it already was.

DR. DIX: When you say “drastic measures” do you mean your so-called sit-down strike?

In this connection I want to submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Number Schacht-40 of my document book, an affidavit from another former colleague of Dr. Schacht in the Reich Ministry of Economics, Kammerdirektor Dr. Asmus. On Page 180 of the English version of this long affidavit there is a brief passage. I quote:

“When this was found to be unsuccessful”—it means his fight—“and when developments continued along the course which he considered wrong, he”—Schacht—“in the autumn of 1937, long before the beginning of the war, acted as an upright man and applied for release from his office as Reich Minister of Economics and thereby from his co-responsibility.

“He was obviously not able to resign his office in the normal way, because for reasons of prestige the Party required the use of his name. Therefore, in the autumn of 1937, he simply remained away from the Ministry of Economics for several weeks. He started this sit-down strike, as it was humorously called in the Ministry, and went in his official capacity only to the Reichsbank...”

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, is it necessary to trouble the Tribunal with all this detail? There is no dispute that he did resign, and the only thing that he has got to explain is why he continued to be a Minister. The Prosecution have given evidence about his resignation and about the conflict between him and the Defendant Göring. What is the good of going into all the detail of it, as to this sit-down strike and that sort of thing? That doesn’t interest the Tribunal.

DR. DIX: He did not remain a Minister at that time. He resigned as Minister.

THE PRESIDENT: I thought he had remained a Minister until 1943.

DR. DIX: Minister without Portfolio, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: I didn’t say Minister with Portfolio, I said Minister.

DR. DIX: Yes, but there is a difference, but I shall come to that later. I understood you to mean an active Minister, but I shall not go into that now. It was a misunderstanding. Anyway, I have already finished that. I was merely trying to show how difficult it was to resign.

[_Turning to the defendant._] We now come to the manner in which you were released. Have you anything to add to the statements made by Lammers in this connection or not?

SCHACHT: I think we should inform the Tribunal of one matter about which I also learned here in prison from my fellow Defendant Speer. He overheard the argument between Hitler and myself on the occasion of that decisive conference in which I managed to push through my resignation.

If the Tribunal allow, I shall read it very briefly. There are two or three sentences. Herr Speer informed me of the following: “I was on the terrace of Berghof on the Obersalzberg, and I was waiting to submit my building plans. In the summer of 1937 when Schacht came to the Berghof...”

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: [_Interposing._] Speer is present in the room. For one defendant to testify as to a conversation with another defendant is a very convenient way of getting testimony without access to cross-examination, but it seems to me that it is a highly objectionable method. I object to this on the ground that it has no probative value to testify to a conversation of this character when the Defendant Speer is in the courtroom and can be sworn and can give his testimony. He sits here and is available.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the subject of the conversation?

DR. DIX: The subject of this conversation is a matter which concerns the Defendant Schacht. It is a statement of Hitler regarding Schacht; it is not a matter which concerns the Defendant Speer. Therefore I consider it expedient for him, since it is a matter which concerns Schacht, to be able to make a statement about it. I would, of course, consider it more appropriate that he should not read something which Speer has written to him, but that he should give his own account of what happened between Hitler and Schacht and merely say, “I heard that from Speer.” That appears to be better than...

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Dix, you may give that.

DR. DIX: [_Turning to the defendant._] Will you please not read, then, but tell of this incident and say you got it from Speer?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is even more objectionable to me than to have a written statement from Speer. If we are to have Speer’s testimony, it at least should be Speer’s and not a repetition of a conversation between the two defendants. If Speer has made a written statement, it can be submitted to us in the ordinary course.

This is the second document that we have not had the privilege of seeing before it has been used here; and it seems to me that if this is a document signed by Speer—which I don’t understand it to be—if it is, that is one thing. We can then see it and perhaps it can be used. If it is a conversation, I should prefer Speer’s version.

DR. DIX: May I add something? The question of procedure is not of basic importance for me here. In that case it can be discussed when Speer is examined. However, I do not know whether Speer is going to be called; probably he will be. Actually it would be better for us to hear it now, but I leave it to the Tribunal to decide. It is not a question of great importance to me.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will allow the evidence.

DR. DIX: [_Turning to the defendant._] Well then, without reading, please describe the incident.

SCHACHT: The gentlemen on the terrace, among them Speer, heard this discussion, which was conducted in very loud tones. At the end of the discussion Hitler came out on the terrace and...

THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. [_There was a brief pause in the proceedings._] Very well, Dr. Dix, go on.

SCHACHT: Hitler came out on the terrace after this conference and said to those present, among them Speer, that he had had a very serious argument with Schacht, that he could not work with Schacht, and that Schacht was upsetting his financial plans.

DR. DIX: Well then, after you had left your position as Minister of Economics you were still left authority as Reichsbank President. Were you approached by Hitler or the Minister of Finance in your capacity as President of the Reichsbank and asked for credit?

SCHACHT: After the Reichsbank had discontinued giving credits, on 31 March 1938, the Reich Minister of Finance of course received more urgent demands for money and toward the end of that year he found himself in the awkward situation of not being able to pay even the salaries of the civil servants from the treasury. He came to me and asked me to grant him a special credit. According to its charter and laws the Reichsbank was entitled and to a certain extent obliged, but actually only entitled, to advance to the Reich up to 400 million marks per annum. The Reich Minister of Finance had received these 400 million marks and he was asking, over and above that, for further credits; the Reichsbank refused to give him these credits. The Reich Minister of Finance had to go to the private banks and all the large banks together gave him a credit of a few hundred million marks. However, the Reichsbank did not participate in this credit.

DR. DIX: If you as President of the Reichsbank turned down those credits, then it seems there was nothing for it but to print more notes. Did Hitler or anyone else suggest to you that the note printing presses should be set in motion?

SCHACHT: After the events of November 1938 I paid one more visit to London, in December, to attend a conference regarding the financing of the Jewish emigration from Germany in an orderly manner—a thing which I myself had suggested. On that occasion I also talked with Prime Minister Chamberlain. On 2 January 1939 I arrived at the Berghof in Berchtesgaden to report to Hitler about these matters. On that occasion we, of course, also got to talk about the financial needs of the Reich. I still refused to give credit to the Reich, and pointed out the very difficult financial situation which called for, or should have called for, a reduction of State expenditure and thus of armament expenditure.

In particular, I pointed out that at the beginning of December the first instalment of the so-called Jewish fine—which had been imposed on the Jews after the murder of Herr Vorn Rath in Paris and which had been collected to the extent of 250 million marks at the beginning of December—that this first instalment of 250 million marks had not been received entirely in the form of cash, but that the Reich Minister of Finance had had to agree to accept a considerable part of it “in kind,” as the English say, because it was not possible to make liquid the cash necessary for this payment. Hitler replied: “But we can circulate notes on the basis of these goods. I have looked into the question of our future financial policy very carefully and when I get back to Berlin in a few days I shall discuss my plans with you and the Minister of Finance.”

I saw at once that it was Hitler’s intention to resort to the printing of notes to meet this expenditure with or without the necessary cover, but at any rate against certain securities. The danger of inflation was now definitely imminent. And since I realized at once that this was the point where I and the Reichsbank had to say “stop,” I replied to him, “Very well, in that case I will get the Reichsbank to submit a memorandum to you, setting out the attitude of the Reichsbank to this problem and which can be used at the joint meeting with the Finance Minister.”

After that I went back to Berlin and informed my colleagues in the Reichsbank Directorate. We saw, to our personal satisfaction, that here was an opportunity for us to divorce ourselves definitely from that type of policy.

The memorandum dated 7 January which the Reichsbank Directorate then submitted to Hitler has, I think, also been submitted as evidence by the Prosecution.

In order to explain the statements which the Reichsbank Directorate made to Hitler in this decisive moment regarding further State expenditure and especially armament expenditure, I ask permission to read only two very brief sentences from this memorandum. It says, and I quote:

“Unrestrained public expenditure constitutes a definite threat to our currency. The unlimited growth of government expenditure defies any attempts to draw up a regulated budget. It brings State finances to the verge of ruin despite a tremendous increase in taxes, and it undermines the currency and the issuing bank.”

Then there is another sentence, and I quote:

“...if during the two great foreign political actions in Austria and the Sudetenland an increase in public expenditure was necessary, the fact that after the termination of these two foreign political actions a reduction of expenditure is not noticeable and that everything seems rather to indicate that a further increase of expenditure is planned, makes it now our absolute duty to point out what the consequences will be for our currency.

“The undersigned Directors of the Reichsbank are sufficiently conscious of the fact that in their co-operation they have gladly devoted all their energy to the great aims that have been set, but that a halt must now be called.”

DR. DIX: This memorandum has already been submitted by the Prosecution under the Document Number EC-369, but it is being submitted again as Exhibit Schacht-24 in our document book, Page 70 of the English text, and Page 63 of the German text.

I shall have to put various questions to Dr. Schacht on that memorandum, but I think that perhaps there is not time now and that I should do so tomorrow.

THE PRESIDENT: If you must, Dr. Dix; but do you think that is very important? At any rate, you had better do it tomorrow, if you are going to do it at all.

DR. DIX: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers?

DR. SIEMERS: Yes, Sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, can you inform us whether those extracts are the same as the extracts which were refused in the case of the Defendant Ribbentrop?

DR. SIEMERS: I have made a comparison, and I can hand it to the Tribunal in writing. Some documents are the same, some do not tally, and some are missing. I have done that in writing.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

The Tribunal will adjourn.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 2 May 1946 at 1000 hours._]

ONE HUNDRED AND NINETEENTH DAY Thursday, 2 May 1946

_Morning Session_

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal would like to know exactly what your letter means, which they received from you, relating to the following documents which the letter says have been withdrawn. What I want to know is, does it mean that they are not to be translated? Let me read you the numbers: 18, 19, 48, 53, 76, 80, 81, 82, 86, and 101. Now, does your letter mean that those documents are not to be translated?

DR. SIEMERS: No, Your Lordship; that means that the British Delegation informed me yesterday morning that the objections against those documents on the part of the British Delegation are withdrawn.

THE PRESIDENT: I see.

DR. SIEMERS: I had written the letter on 30 April, in the afternoon, after I had had a conversation with Sir David. The following morning I was informed...

THE PRESIDENT: We won’t bother with that. You say that their objections no longer exist. If they agree to that, well and good.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, apparently there seems to have been some misunderstanding about three of them, Numbers 80, 101, and 76. The others were not objected to.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, on 76 there seemed to be some misunderstanding between Dr. Siemers and myself. I understood that he did not want to persist in the legal report on the _Altmark_ incident, and I think Dr. Siemers thought that I wasn’t persisting. However, I thought Dr. Siemers was withdrawing that.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, then, are you still objecting to that?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am still objecting to it if it is not withdrawn, My Lord. However, the other ones in the list Your Lordship mentioned—that is Numbers 18, 19, 48, 53, 81, 82, and 86—there is no objection to.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: Concerning Document 76, I agree with Sir David. Number 76 can be struck out, as far as I am concerned.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. That’s all I wanted to know.

DR. SIEMERS: Number 80 about which I have spoken in detail with the British Delegation...

THE PRESIDENT: You need not tell me about it.

DR. SIEMERS: I assumed there would be no objection. I would like to ask that it be admitted in any case.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that is right. In order that the Translation Division should get on as soon as possible, the Tribunal has decided upon these documents and the only questions upon which the Tribunal has decided is that they shall be translated. The question of their admissibility will be decided after they have been translated, and I will take them in the categories of objection which are set out in Sir David’s memorandum.

In Category A, the first category, Number 66 will be allowed. Number 76 as Dr. Siemers has now said, goes out. Numbers 101 to 106 will be allowed, the rest are disallowed in A. In B the following documents will be allowed: Numbers 39, 63, 64, 99, and 100. And, of course, Numbers 102 to 107, which are allowed under A. The rest will not be allowed.

Category C: The following will be allowed: Numbers 38, 50, 55, and 58. The remainder are not allowed.

Category D: The following will be allowed: Numbers 29, 56, 57, 60, and 62.

Category E: The following will be allowed: Numbers 31, 32, 36, 37, 39, 41, and of course 99 and 101 which have already been allowed.

In the last category, Category F, the Tribunal has very great doubts as to the relevance of any of the documents in that category, but it will have them all translated with the exception of Document 73.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, I wonder whether the Tribunal would allow me to mention the document numbers of the additional extracts from _Der Stürmer_ which were put in cross-examination of Streicher. I had the numbers ready to present at a convenient time.

THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit numbers?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: You mean read them?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: With the permission of the Tribunal, I have proposed to hand in that schedule, which is in effect a catalogue or index to the two bundles which the Tribunal had—Bundle A and Bundle B—and I proposed then putting this schedule in as an exhibit itself, which will become GB-450, (Document Number D-833), and if the Tribunal agrees, that would save reading any numbers out.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: There is another request I would make. The original of the newspaper, _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_, was put in, or has been put in. Those volumes I have borrowed from a library, and I was going to ask the Tribunal’s permission to have the extracts photographed and to substitute with the Tribunal’s Secretariat the photostats, and then take back the originals so that they might be returned.

THE PRESIDENT: There seems no objection to that.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I am very much obliged.

THE PRESIDENT: You have no objection to that, Dr. Marx?

DR. MARX: No, Mr. President, I have no objection to that. I reserve the right to submit some counter documents if it should be necessary. But the presentation of these documents is in accordance with what Colonel Griffith-Jones stated in the course of the proceedings—if they are submitted...

THE PRESIDENT: You have a copy of this document here, this exhibit.

DR. MARX: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: I am asking you whether you had any objection to the original of the Jewish newspaper being returned...

DR. MARX: No.

THE PRESIDENT: ...after it is photographed.

DR. MARX: No, I have no objection to that.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I am very much obliged.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Dix?

DR. DIX: Dr. Schacht, I believe you still had to supplement your answer to a question I put to you yesterday. I put to you the point that different memoranda, letters, _et cetera_ from you to Hitler were full of National Socialist phraseology. I said you dealt with letters and memoranda from the date of the seizure of power until later when you went into opposition. The Prosecution, however, specifically in the oral presentation of the charges, as I remember it, referred to at least one letter which you addressed to Hitler before the seizure of power in November 1932, and there is in the files another letter of similar contents of August 1932. I think you should state your position with respect to these two letters, supplementing your answer to my question.

DR. SCHACHT: I explained to you yesterday already that up to the decisive election of July 1932, I had in no way intervened in the development of the National Socialist movement, but remained completely aloof from it. After that movement achieved its overpowering success in July 1932, of which I spoke yesterday, I foresaw very clearly the development which would now result. According to the principles of the democratic political concept there was only one possibility, namely, that the leader of that overwhelmingly large party would now have to form a new government. I rejected from the first the other theoretical possibility of a military government and a possibly resulting civil war, as being impossible and incompatible with my principles.

Therefore, after I had recognized these facts I endeavored in everything to gain influence over Hitler and his movement, and the two letters which you have just mentioned were written in that spirit.

DR. DIX: What did you know about Hitler’s plans against Austria?

SCHACHT: I never knew anything about plans against Austria. Nor did I know in detail the plans Hitler had for Austria. I only knew—like the majority of all Germans—that he was in favor of an Anschluss of Austria with Germany.

DR. DIX: What did you know about his plans against Czechoslovakia?

SCHACHT: I knew nothing of his plans against Czechoslovakia until about the time of the Munich Conference.

DR. DIX: Did you, after the Munich Conference, that is to say, after the peaceful, so far peaceful settlement of the Sudeten question, hear a remark of Hitler’s about Munich which was of importance in your later personal attitude toward Hitler? Will you tell the Tribunal the remark which you heard?

SCHACHT: May I say first that, according to my knowledge of conditions at that time, Hitler was conceded in Munich more than he had ever expected. According to my information—and I expressed this also in the conversation with Ambassador Bullitt at that time—it was Hitler’s purpose to gain autonomy for the Germans in Czechoslovakia. In Munich the Allies presented him with the transfer of the Sudeten-German territories on a silver platter. I assumed, of course, that now Hitler’s ambition would be more than satisfied and I can only say that I was surprised and shocked when a few days after Munich I saw Hitler. I had no further conversation with him at that time, but I met him with his entourage, mostly SS men, and from the conversation between him and the SS men I could only catch the remark: “That fellow has spoiled my entry into Prague.” That is to say made it impossible.

Apparently he was not satisfied with the great success which he had achieved in foreign politics, but I mentioned when I spoke about it yesterday the fact that I assumed from that remark that he lacked the glory and a glamorous staging.

DR. DIX: And what were your feelings in regard to your whole political attitude towards Hitler after Munich?

SCHACHT: In spite of the foreign political success I regretted very deeply, and so did my close friends, that by this intervention on the part of the Allied Powers, our attempt to remove the Hitler regime was ruined for a long time to come—we did not know at that time of course what would happen in the future—but, naturally, at that moment we had to resign ourselves to it.

DR. DIX: What did you know about Hitler’s plans against Memel?

SCHACHT: I knew nothing at all and never heard anything about it. As far as I know, I learned of the annexation of Memel by Germany on my trip to India, which I had already started at that time.

DR. DIX: And since you were in India at that time, you, of course, heard nothing either about the negotiations, _et cetera_, which preceded the attack on Poland?

SCHACHT: I had no knowledge about that and therefore I also knew nothing of the May meeting of 1939 which has been discussed several times. In the beginning of March I left Berlin and then stayed for some time in Switzerland; at the end of March I set out for India via Genoa, and so I learned nothing at all about the Hacha affair, that is the establishment of the protectorate in Czechoslovakia, nor of Memel, nor of Poland, since I did not return from the trip to India until the beginning of August.

DR. DIX: The invasions of Belgium, Holland, Norway, and Denmark have been taken up here. Did you approve of these measures and actions?

SCHACHT: Under no circumstances.

DR. DIX: Were you ever able to express that disapproval anywhere and how?

SCHACHT: Before the invasion of Belgium I was visited on the order of the Chief of the General Staff, Halder, by the Quartermaster General, the then Colonel, later General Wagner who after the collapse committed suicide. He informed me of the intended invasion of Belgium. I was shocked and I replied at that time, “If you want to commit that insanity too, then you are beyond help.”

THE PRESIDENT: What time?

SCHACHT: Before the march into Belgium. Exactly when it was I could not say. It may have been already in November 1939. It may have been in April 1940. I no longer know exactly when it was.

DR. DIX: Even though you did not approve of that action, Germany was after all engaged in a life and death struggle. Did not that cause you to put your active co-operation at her disposal, since you were still Minister without Portfolio, though you no longer held a special office?

SCHACHT: I did not do that.

DR. DIX: Did anyone ask you to do that?

SCHACHT: The visit, which I have just mentioned, of Quartermaster General Wagner, upon order of the Chief of General Staff Halder, was intended to persuade me to act in Germany’s interest during the expected occupation of Belgium. I was to supervise and direct currency, finance, and banking matters in Belgium. I flatly refused that. Later I was approached again by the then Military Governor of Belgium, General Von Falkenhausen, for advice concerning the Belgian financial administration. I again refused to give advice and did not make any statements or participate in any way.

DR. DIX: When did you for the first time...

SCHACHT: I could perhaps relate another instance when I was approached. One day, shortly after America was drawn into the war, I received a request from the newspaper published by Goebbels, that, on account of my knowledge of American conditions, I should write an article for _Das Reich_, to assure the German people that the war potential of the United States should not be overestimated. I refused to write that article for the reason that precisely because I knew American conditions very well, my statement could only amount to the exact opposite. And so I refused in this instance also.

DR. DIX: When did you hear for the first time of the meeting which we call here simply the Hossbach meeting, or the meeting concerning the Hossbach protocol?

SCHACHT: To my great surprise, I was informed of that meeting on 20 October 1945, here in my cell, and I was extremely astonished that during all previous interrogations I had never been asked about this record, because it can be seen clearly from it that the Reich Government was not to be informed of Hitler’s intentions for war and therefore could not know anything about them.

DR. DIX: Did you take part in similar conferences which were preparatory to attacks, for instance the meeting of November 1940 in which the attack on Russia was discussed? I do not wish to be misunderstood—the Speer document which you spoke of yesterday discusses an attack which according to Hitler was threatened by Russia. I am speaking now of discussions in which the subject was an attack on Russia.

SCHACHT: The fear of an attack from Russia dates back to the fall of 1936 and therefore has as yet nothing to do with the war. I never took part in any conference which indicated intentions of war, consequently not in the conference on the intended attack on Russia, and I never heard anything about it.

DR. DIX: Does that also apply to the meeting of May 1941?

SCHACHT: At the moment, I do not know which meeting that is, but I did not in any way take part in any meeting in May 1941, as during the entire period when I was Minister without Portfolio, I never took part in any official conference.

DR. DIX: Then you also did not get any information about the conferences which the Japanese Foreign Minister Matsuoka had in Berlin?

SCHACHT: I did not have the slightest knowledge of the Matsuoka conference except what may perhaps have been said on the radio or in the press.

DR. DIX: Mention has been made in some way that you at one time had made available 200,000 marks for Nazi propaganda purposes in Austria. Is there any truth in this?

SCHACHT: I have not the slightest knowledge of that.

DR. DIX: Now we come to your dismissal as President of the Reichsbank. As you have heard, the Prosecution asserts that you finally brought about your own dismissal in order to evade the financial responsibility. I ask you to reply to that accusation and to tell the Tribunal briefly but exhaustively the reasons and the tactical deliberations leading to your dismissal and that of your assistants. They appear here in the memorandum of the Reichsbank Directorate which has been under consideration several times.

SCHACHT: I should like to divide the question into two parts: The first question is whether I tried to rid myself of my office as President of the Reichsbank. My answer to that question is a most emphatic “yes.” Since the middle of 1938, we in the Reichsbank always considered that if there were no change in policy, we in no event wanted to continue in office, because—and that brings me to the second part of the question—we did not want to assume the responsibility which we were then expected to bear.

For everything which we did previously and for a defensive rearmament in order to achieve equal rights for Germany in international politics, we gladly assumed responsibility, and we assume it before history and this Tribunal. But the responsibility for continuing rearmament which possibly in itself constituted a serious potential danger of war or which would ever aim at war intentionally—that responsibility none of us wanted to assume. Consequently, when it became clear that Hitler was working toward a further increase in rearmament—and I spoke about that yesterday in connection with the conversation of 2 January 1939—when we became aware of that we wrote the memorandum which was openly quoted and is in the hands of this Tribunal as an exhibit. It indicates clearly that we opposed every further increase of state expenditure and would not assume responsibility for it. From that, Hitler gathered that he would in no event be able to use the Reichsbank with its present Directorate and President for any future financial purposes. Therefore, there remained only one alternative; to change the Directorate, because without the Reichsbank he could not go on. And he had to take a second step; he had to change the Reichsbank Law. That is to say, an end had to be put to the independence of the Reichsbank from government decrees. At first he did that in a secret law—we had such things—of 19 or 20 January 1939. That law was published only about 6 months later. That law abolished the independence of the Reichsbank and the President of the Reichsbank became a mere cashier for the credit demands of the Reich, that is to say, of Hitler.

The Reichsbank Directorate did not want to continue along this line of development. Therefore, on 20 January the President of the Reichsbank, the Vice President, and the main financial expert, Reichsbank Director Huelse, were dismissed; three other members of the Directorate of the Reichsbank, Geheimrat Vocke, Director Erhard, and Director Blessing pressed insistently for their resignation from the Reichsbank until it was also granted. Two other members of the Reichsbank Directorate, Director Puhl, whose name has been mentioned here already, and an eighth director, Director Poetschmann, remained in the Directorate even under the new conditions. They were both Party members, the only ones in the Directorate, and therefore they could not easily withdraw.

DR. DIX: That is one accusation which is made by the Prosecution concerning your reasons for writing the memorandum, that is to say, to evade the financial responsibility. The second accusation is that not a word of this memorandum expressly mentions limitation of armaments, but that it essentially treats only matters of currency, technical questions of finance, and economic considerations; and that it was therefore the Dr. Schacht who in his capacity of Bank Director was concerned about the currency, rather than the opponent of rearmament, who made himself heard by this memorandum.

It is necessary that as co-author of the memorandum—as its main author—you state your position with regard to this incriminating interpretation of the memorandum.

SCHACHT: Even at an earlier time I said here that every objection which I made and had to make to Hitler—and that applies not only to myself but to all ministers—could only be made with arguments arising out of the particular department administered.

Had I said to Hitler, “I shall not give you any more money because you intend to wage war,” I should not have the pleasure of conducting this animated conversation here with you. I could then have consulted a priest, and it would have been a very one-sided affair because I would have lain silently in my tomb, and the priest would have delivered a monologue.

DR. DIX: This memorandum is certainly very important, and therefore we have to pause here for a moment. In summarizing—and please check me—I believe I can express your views in this way: This memorandum at the end contained demands such as further means of raising funds by increase of taxation or else by making use of the stock market—both impossible. Taxation could not be increased any more. The stock market had just unsuccessfully attempted a loan.

If these actually impossible demands had been granted, the Reichsbank would have created guarantees that no further funds would be used for one or another form of rearmament. This success was not to be expected; rather you could expect your dismissal. Did my brief but comprehensive summary of this matter express your views correctly?

SCHACHT: That entire letter was composed in such a way that there were only two possible answers to it; either an alteration of financial policy—and that meant a stop to rearmament, which would have amounted to a complete change of Hitler’s policy—or else the dismissal of the Reichsbank President; and that happened. We expected it because at that time I no longer believed that Hitler would change his policy so completely.

DR. DIX: Therefore, the Prosecution are right in saying that your mission ended with your dismissal.

SCHACHT: Hitler certainly confirmed that himself and in the letter of dismissal to me said it expressly. We heard from the testimony of Herr Lammers in this Court that Hitler with his own hand wrote that addition into the letter, that my name would remain connected with the first stage of rearmament. The second stage of rearmament I rejected and Hitler understood that very clearly, because when he received that letter from the Reichsbank he said to those who were present: “This is mutiny.”

DR. DIX: How do you know that?

SCHACHT: The witness Vocke who will, I hope, appear in this Court will testify to that.

DR. DIX: Furthermore, the Prosecution asserted that your exit from the political stage could not be attributed to your policy of opposition to a war but to disputes with Hermann Göring over power and rank. As such, that accusation seems to me to have been refuted already by statements which Göring and Lammers have made up to now. We do not wish to recapitulate. I merely want to ask you whether you have anything to add to the statements made on this subject by Göring and Lammers, or whether you disagree with them.

SCHACHT: In his oral presentation the prosecutor said that throughout the entire material which he had studied he could not find one piece of evidence for my opposition to a policy of war. I can only say in this respect: If someone on account of his shortsightedness does not see a tree on a level plain, there is surely no proof that the tree is not there.

DR. DIX: You have heard from the Prosecution that you are accused of having remained a member of the Cabinet as a Reich Minister without Portfolio. That was also the cause for misunderstanding yesterday. I merely wanted to express yesterday that you had resigned as an active minister and head of a department, that you resigned as Minister of Economy and His Lordship correctly pointed out, that of course you remained a Minister without Portfolio, that is without a special sphere of activity until January 1943. Of that you are accused by the Prosecution. What caused you to remain Reich Minister without Portfolio? Why did you do that? Did you have any particular financial reasons? Excuse my mentioning that, but the trial brief, on Page 5, charges you with that motive.

SCHACHT: I have already repeatedly explained here that my release from office as Minister of Economy encountered very great difficulties, and you have also submitted several affidavits confirming the fact.

Hitler did not, under any circumstances, want it to be known that a break or even so much as a difference of opinion had occurred between one of his assistants and himself. When he finally approved my release, he attached the condition that nominally I should remain Minister without Portfolio.

As regards the second accusation, it is as unworthy as it is wrong. There was a law in Germany that if a person held two public offices he could be paid only for one. Since I was in addition President of the Reichsbank I continuously received my income from the Reichsbank, at first my salary and later my pension; therefore as a minister I drew no salary whatever.

DR. DIX: Did you then, during the entire period of your position as Reich Minister without Portfolio, have any other function to fulfill in that capacity? Did you take any part in important decisions of the Cabinet, did you participate in discussions—in brief, was the Minister without Portfolio just a fancy dress major or was the position one of substance?

SCHACHT: I have already emphasized again and again in this Court—and I can only repeat it again—that after I left the Reichsbank I had not a single official discussion; I did not take part in a single ministerial or official conference and that, unfortunately, it was not possible for me to bring up any subject for discussion; for I had no factual basis or pretext for such a possibility, for the very reason that I had no particular field to administer. I believe that I was the only Minister without Portfolio—there were also a few others—who was not active in any way at all. As far as I know, Seyss-Inquart was undoubtedly Minister without Portfolio; he had his administration in Holland. Frank was Minister without Portfolio and had his administration in Poland. Schirach—I do not know whether he was Minister without Portfolio; I think it has been mentioned once, but I do not know if it is correct—he had his Austrian administration in Vienna. I had nothing further to do with the state administration or in any other way with the State or the Party.

DR. DIX: What about the ordinary course of affairs? Were there perhaps any circulars sent out by Lammers on which you acted?

SCHACHT: On the whole—and I think it is understandable after what I have stated here—I watched carefully for every possibility of intervening again in some way but I remember and state with absolute certainty, that during the entire time until the collapse I received all in all three official memoranda. The numerous invitations to state funerals and similar social state functions really need not be mentioned here as official communications. I did not participate in these occasions either. However, these three instances are interesting. The first time it was a letter from Hitler—pardon, from Himmler—a circular or request or a bill proposed by Himmler who intended to transfer court jurisdiction over the so-called asocial elements of the population to the police, or rather the Gestapo, that is to say, a basic principle of the administration of justice to separate the functions of prosecution and judge...

DR. DIX: Well, that is known, Dr. Schacht. You can assume that is known.

SCHACHT: In regard to this question I immediately assented in the copy of a letter which Reich Minister Frank had sent me in which he took a stand against this basic violation of legal principles, and the bill was not made law. It would indeed have been extremely regrettable, because I am firmly convinced that I myself was a definite anti-social element in Himmler’s sense.

The second instance was a letter concerning some discussions about state property in Yugoslavia, after we had occupied Yugoslavia. I answered that since I had not taken part in the preliminary discussions on the draft of the law I should not be counted upon to assist in this matter.

Finally, the third incident—and this is the most important—occurred in November 1942. Apparently by mistake there came into circulation the draft for a law of the Reich Minister for Air, which contained the suggestion of taking 15 and 16 year old students away from the high school to enlist them for military service in the anti-aircraft defense, the so-called Flakdienst. I answered this letter because it was a welcome opportunity for me to state for once my opinion on the military situation in a long detailed reply which I sent to Göring.

DR. DIX: On the third of November?

SCHACHT: It is a letter of 30 November, which on the second of December I believe was given personally by my secretary to the adjutant of Göring in a closed envelope, with the request that he himself open it.

DR. DIX: One moment, Dr. Schacht.

[_Turning to the Tribunal._] That letter has already been submitted under Document Number 3700-PS by the Prosecution, but it is also in our document book under Exhibit Number 23; Page 66 of the English text and Page 59 of the German text. If we were not so pressed for time, it would have been especially gratifying for me to read this letter here in full. It is a very fine letter. However, I want to take time into consideration and I merely ask you, Dr. Schacht, to state briefly your opinion of its content.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will read the letter. It isn’t necessary for you to read it now, is it?

DR. DIX: Very well. Well, then, would he speak quite briefly about the letter before the recess or do you not wish to say anything further?

SCHACHT: Yes. I would like to say in this connection, if it is permitted, that to my knowledge this letter has already been read here by the American Chief Prosecutor, that is...

DR. DIX: Read?

SCHACHT: Or mentioned, or at least the most important points were read. I believe it is sufficient if you submit the letter to the Court in evidence.

DR. DIX: Yes, that has been done.

Now, that constituted your entire activity as Reich Minister without Portfolio?

SCHACHT: Yes, that was the end of it.

DR. DIX: Therefore if one wanted to define your position in one word, one would say, just a kind of retired major (Charaktermajor).

SCHACHT: I don’t know what a “Charaktermajor” is, at any rate, I was never a major, but I have always had character.

DR. DIX: But, Dr. Schacht, that is a historical remark about authority conferred by Kaiser Wilhelm, the First as German Emperor on Bismarck.

THE PRESIDENT: I think this is a convenient time to break off.

[_A recess was taken._]

DR. DIX: Dr. Schacht, we spoke of the letter, dated 30 November 1942, to Göring. Did that letter have any consequences?

SCHACHT: Yes, the letter had very considerable consequences. It had the result that on 22 January I did at last receive my long hoped-for release from my position of a nominal Minister without Portfolio. The reason given for it, however, was less pleasant. I believe the letter is already in the files of the Tribunal. It is a letter attached to the official document of release from Lammers.

DR. DIX: Yes, very well. We put a question on that subject during Lammers’ hearing.

SCHACHT: Yes. But I should only like to refer to the statement which says: “...in view of your entire conduct in the present fateful struggle of the German nation...”—so that was my whole attitude.

DR. DIX: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, it is Number 26 of the document book. It is on Page 76 of the English text and on Page 69 of the German text.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Please continue.

SCHACHT: It was, therefore, my entire attitude during this war which led to my dismissal, and the letter of dismissal also contained the statement that I would be dismissed for the time being. According to Lammers’ statement, as we have heard, this expression “for the time being” was included in the letter, also on the Führer’s initiative. I was very clearly aware of this wording when I received the letter.

Two days later I was removed from the Prussian State Council, of which I was a member—a body, incidentally, which had not met for at least 8 years. At any rate, I was not at the meetings. Perhaps it was 6 years, I do not know. The text of that decision was communicated to me by the chairman of that State Council, Hermann Göring, and because of its almost amusing contents, I still recollect it very clearly. It stated:

“My answer to your defeatist letter undermining the power of resistance of the German people is that I remove you from the Prussian State Council.”

I say it was amusing because a sealed letter written by me to Göring could not possibly shake the power of resistance of the German people. A further result was that Party Leader Bormann demanded from me the return of the Golden Party Badge and I did that at once. After that I was particularly closely watched by the Gestapo. I gave up my residence in Berlin immediately, within 24 hours, and for the whole day the Gestapo spies followed me all over Berlin both on foot and by car. Then I quietly retired to my estate in the country.

DR. DIX: Now, since the trial brief has mentioned material and pecuniary reasons for the decisions which you made, it appears to me justified and necessary to ask what was the position regarding your property and your income after 1933? In your reply please take into consideration that it is striking that in 1942 there was an increase in your income.

SCHACHT: A few months ago, apparently with the approval of the Military Government, there appeared in the press a list of donations which the Party leaders and ministers in Germany received and, in that connection, of their income and their property. I was also listed, not under “donations,” but it was stated that in 1942 I had an unusually high income. This list is incorrect, since it is a gross figure which is mentioned and it does not take into consideration the fact that the war profit tax was later deducted from it. When the list was compiled the tax was not yet determined, so that about 80 percent must be deducted from the sum which is given there. The income is then no longer striking in any way. In regard to my property, the list shows that over a period of 10 years it has hardly changed, and I want to emphasize here particularly that in the last 20 years my property remained approximately the same and did not increase.

DR. DIX: If I remember rightly you reduced your own salary as President of the Reichsbank at a certain time on your own initiative?

SCHACHT: When, on Hitler’s suggestion, President Hindenburg in March of 1933 appointed me again to the position of President of the Reichsbank, Hitler left it to me to fix my own income. At that time, I voluntarily reduced my income to less than 25 percent of my former income from the Reichsbank.

DR. DIX: Did you ever receive presents or donations from Hitler, either in money or in valuables?

SCHACHT: As I have just mentioned, I have never received any kind of donations from Hitler, and I think he would hardly have risked offering me one. I did, indeed, receive one present from Hitler, on the occasion of my 60th birthday. He gave me a picture which certainly had the value of about 20,000 marks. It was an oil painting by a German painter Spitzweg; and would have been worth approximately 200,000 marks if it had been genuine. As soon as the picture was brought into my room I recognized it as a forgery, but I succeeded about 3 months later in tracing the original. I started proceedings on the subject of the genuineness of the picture, and the forgery was established before a court.

THE PRESIDENT: It is not appropriate for the Tribunal to listen to this.

DR. DIX: Did Hitler ever bestow on you the right to wear a uniform or give you any kind of decoration or military rank?

SCHACHT: If the Tribunal will permit me I would like to say that I returned the forgery and it was never replaced; so that I have received no presents from Hitler.

Hitler offered me a uniform. He said I could have any uniform I desired but I only raised my hands in refusal and did not accept any, not even the uniform of an official, because I did not wish to have a uniform.

DR. DIX: Now, another subject: Did you know anything about the concentration camps?

SCHACHT: Already in the year 1933, when Göring established concentration camps, I heard several times that political opponents and other disliked or inconvenient persons were taken away to a concentration camp. That these people were deprived of their liberty perturbed me very much at the time, of course, and I continuously demanded, as far as I was in a position to do so during conversations, that the arrest and removal to concentration camps should be followed by a clarification before the law with a defense and so on, and suitable legal proceedings. At that early time the Reich Minister of the Interior Frick also protested energetically along the same lines. Subsequently this type of imprisonment, _et cetera_, became less known in public, and in consequence I assumed that things were slowly abating. Only much later—let us say the second half of 1934 and 1935...

DR. DIX: When you met Gisevius, you mean?

SCHACHT: Yes, when I met Gisevius—I heard on repeated occasions that not only were people still being deprived of their liberty, but that sometimes they were being ill-treated, that beatings, _et cetera_, took place. I have already said before this Tribunal that as a result, as early as May 1935, I personally took the opportunity of drawing Hitler’s attention to these conditions and that I told him at the time that such a system was causing the whole world to despise us and must cease. I have mentioned that I repeatedly took a stand against all these things publicly, whenever there was a possibility of doing so.

But I never heard anything of the serious ill-treatment and outrages—murder and the like—which started later. Probably because, firstly, these conditions did not begin until after the war, after the outbreak of war, and because already from 1939 onwards I led a very retired life. I heard of these things and of the dreadful form in which they happened only here in prison. However, I did hear, as early as 1938 and after, of the deportation of Jews; but because individual cases were brought to my notice I could only ascertain that there were deportations to Theresienstadt, where allegedly there was an assembly camp for Jews, where Jews were accommodated until a later date when the Jewish problem was to be dealt with again. Any physical ill-treatment, not to speak of killing or the like, never came to my knowledge.

DR. DIX: Did you ever take a look at a concentration camp?

SCHACHT: I had an opportunity of acquainting myself with several concentration camps when, on 23 July 1944, I myself was dragged into a concentration camp. Before that date I did not visit a single concentration camp at any time, but afterwards I got to know not only the ordinary concentration camps but also the extermination camp in Flossenbürg.

DR. DIX: Did you not, while in Flossenbürg, receive a visit from a “comrade-in-ideas”—if I may say so?

SCHACHT: I know of this matter only from a letter which this gentleman sent to you or to this Tribunal, I believe, and in which he describes that visit. I can only, on my own observation...

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think it is improper to give the contents of a letter from a person unidentified. I have said to this Tribunal before that these letters which come from unidentified persons—if he is identified, it has not been done in evidence—come to all of us. I am sure members of the Tribunal get a great many of them. If that is evidence, then the Prosecution should reopen its case, because I have baskets of them.

I think it is highly improper to take communications and put them in evidence directly and it is even more improper to relate all of them by oral testimony when the document is not produced. I think this kind of evidence has no probative value and I object to it.

DR. DIX: May I be permitted to say that I would never do anything improper nor have I done it. I do not intend in any way to submit this very harmless jocular letter to the Tribunal as evidence. But this letter, which reached me through quite regular channels, informed Dr. Schacht and myself that there existed a plan to murder him in Flossenbürg. That is why I also questioned the witness Kaltenbrunner on this matter. The only reason why I am asking Dr. Schacht is that I expect him to inform the Tribunal that according to this information there was in fact at that time an order to murder him. This fact, not the letter, is not without some significance, because if a regime wants to kill a man then that is at least proof of the fact that it is not particularly well-disposed toward him. That is the only reason why I asked that this letter be submitted, and it is, of course, also at Mr. Justice Jackson’s disposal. It is really quite an amusing letter, written by a simple man.

But I would never have considered submitting this letter as a document in evidence. If the Tribunal have objections to hearing the matter, a matter which was also discussed when Kaltenbrunner was examined, then I shall willingly omit it. I am quite astonished that the matter should be given so much significance.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the Tribunal thinks that the letter isn’t being offered in evidence, and therefore you ought not to refer to it. Well, then, don’t refer to it.

DR. DIX: All right, we shall leave it.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Well, now, at last you were released. What did you do then?

SCHACHT: After that time I did nothing more apart from continuing my efforts towards the removal of Hitler. That was my only political activity. For the rest, I was living on my estate.

DR. DIX: Did you not go on a journey in the spring of 1939?

SCHACHT: Excuse me, you are speaking of the time after the dismissal as President of the Reichsbank, I thought you meant minister. I was just talking of 1943.

DR. DIX: No. No.

SCHACHT: You are going back to the year 1939. After the dismissal in January 1939 I already mentioned that Hitler suggested to me that I should go on an extensive journey abroad and at the time I went to India by way of Switzerland, where I again saw my friends.

DR. DIX: Were you in any way politically active in India?

SCHACHT: In India I merely traveled as a tourist. I was not politically active but, of course, I visited several governors and I spent 3 days as the Viceroy’s guest in his house in Simla.

DR. DIX: Did you not have political connections with Chinese statesmen in Rangoon?

SCHACHT: When I was in Burma, after leaving India, I received a visit in Rangoon from a Chinese friend who had visited me before in Berlin on occasion and who had been commissioned by his government to talk to me about the Situation of China.

DR. DIX: That is Chiang Kai-Shek’s China?

SCHACHT: Chiang Kai-Shek’s China which was already at war with Japan at the time. The other China did not then exist and this gentleman asked me upon the request of Chiang Kai-Shek and the Chinese Cabinet...

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I can’t see the slightest relevancy to this. In the first place, we heard it once and secondly, after we had heard it it has no relevancy to the case. We have no charge against him that he did anything in China and we will stipulate that he was as pure as snow all the time he was in China. We haven’t a thing to do with that and it is taking time here that just gets us nowhere and is keeping us away from the real charge in the case.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal quite understands that you say it is irrelevant. Why do you say it is relevant?

DR. DIX: I regret that Mr. Justice Jackson and I understand each other too little. The matter is relevant in the following connection: In this testimony and also in an affidavit which has been read...

THE PRESIDENT: I think we heard three times that the Defendant Schacht went to India. Three times in his evidence he dealt with the fact that he went to India and China. How is it relevant?

DR. DIX: I am not speaking of the journey to India. It had to be mentioned only briefly to explain the connection of time. I put a question, referring to Schacht’s negotiations in Rangoon with the envoy from Chiang Kai-Shek—with the Chinese—and at that point Mr. Justice Jackson raised his objection. But the fact that Schacht maintained friendly connections with Chiang Kai-Shek’s Government and gave support to it, that fact is relevant, and for the same reason for which I attached importance to the fact that it became clear here that in regard to the Union of Soviet Republics also Schacht pursued a pro-Soviet line in his economic policy during the years when Hitler was conducting a political campaign against Russia. Here we have a second instance, where he is demanding relations which were contrary to the principles of Hitler’s policy; that is relations with Chiang Kai-Shek, and so against Hitler’s ally, Japan. It is in this connection that the negotiations with the Chinese are of significance. They will take only a moment’s time at most. They were merely to be mentioned in passing.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that if you consider his relations with China of any importance, it can be stated in one sentence.

DR. DIX: I am of the same opinion.

SCHACHT: I will sum it up in one sentence. In a written memorandum I advised Chiang Kai-Shek’s government to continue holding out against Japan, giving as reason that the economic resources of China would last longer than the economic resources of Japan; and I advised Chiang Kai-Shek to rely primarily on the United States of America in his foreign policy.

DR. DIX: Then upon your return from India, that is, in August 1939, you found a situation which must have appeared quite tense to someone who was just coming back. Did you not then attempt to contact the Cabinet or Hitler in order to discuss this situation?

SCHACHT: Of course, I found a very tense situation in the question of Poland and I used my return as an occasion for writing a letter to Hitler, a letter to Göring, and a letter to Ribbentrop; that is to say, the three leading men, in order to inform them that I had come back from India, leaving it to their discretion and expecting that at least one of them would ask me for an account of my experiences; and then, I should have had an opportunity of talking to the leading men once again. To my very great surprise, I did not get an answer from Hitler at all; I received no reply from Göring; and Herr Von Ribbentrop answered me that he had taken note of my letter. There was therefore no other way for me but to make my own inquiries regarding the real state of affairs on Poland, and when things became critical I took the well-known step, which has already been described here by Herr Gisevius; namely the attempt to gain access to the Führer’s headquarters.

DR. DIX: We need not repeat that. The only question which I still want to ask you is what were you going to tell the generals, particularly General Von Brauchitsch, at that last moment?

SCHACHT: That he still had a chance to avert a war. I knew perfectly well that bare economic and general political statements would of course accomplish nothing with Von Brauchitsch because he would then certainly have referred to Hitler’s leadership. Therefore I wanted to say to him something of quite a different nature and, in my opinion, that is of the most decisive significance. I was going to remind him that he had sworn an oath of allegiance to the Weimar Constitution. I wanted to remind him that the Enabling Act did not delegate power to Hitler but to the Reich Cabinet and I wanted to remind him that in the Weimar Constitution there was and still is a clause, which has never been annulled and according to which, war cannot be declared without previous approval by the Reichstag. I was convinced that Brauchitsch would have referred me to his oath sworn to Hitler and I would have told him: “I also have sworn this oath. You have sworn no oath other than your military one, perhaps, but this oath does not in any way invalidate the oath sworn to the Weimar Constitution; on the contrary, the oath to the Weimar Constitution is the one that is valid. It is your duty, therefore, to see to it that this entire question of war or no war be brought before the Cabinet and discussed there, and when the Reich Cabinet has made a decision, the matter will go before the Reichstag.” If these two steps had been taken, then I am firmly convinced that there would have been no war.

DR. DIX: You never reached Brauchitsch. We do not want to repeat the description of that whole affair or of your attempts at the Bendlerstrasse and so on. Have you anything to add to Gisevius’ testimony or do you wish to change anything in it?

SCHACHT: I can only confirm that Gisevius’ statement is correct in every single point and I myself merely want to add that Canaris mentioned among many reasons which then kept us from making the visit, that Brauchitsch would probably have us arrested immediately if we said anything to him against the war or if we wanted to prevent him from fulfilling his oath of allegiance to Hitler. But the main reason why the visit did not come about was quite correctly stated by Gisevius. Moreover it is also mentioned by General Thomas in his affidavit which we shall later submit. The main reason was: the war was canceled. And so I went to Munich on a business matter and to my surprise while in Munich, war was declared on Poland; the country was invaded.

DR. DIX: You mentioned the Reichstag a short time ago. A meeting of the Reichstag did in fact take place, though not before the war or before the declaration of war, but immediately thereafter. At the time you were still a Minister without Portfolio.

Normally you would have had to sit on the minister’s bench during that meeting.

Did you take part in that meeting?

SCHACHT: I did not participate in that meeting at all and I would like to add at once that during the entire war, I was present at only one meeting of the Reichstag. I could not avoid it, considering the matters which I already mentioned here yesterday. It was after Hitler’s return from Paris. I had to participate in this meeting of the Reichstag, which followed the reception at the station because, as I said, it would otherwise have been too obvious an affront. It was the meeting during which political matters were not dealt with at all, but at which the field marshal’s rank was granted by the dozen.

DR. DIX: Now, this last effort which has just been mentioned to stop the outbreak of war through Canaris brings us to the particular chapter of your attempts at a coup to overthrow Hitler and his government. We want to make it a rule, if possible, not to repeat what the witness Gisevius has already stated but only to supplement or correct or state what you know from your own memory. Before I touch upon that chapter, however, may I ask you whether you know from information you received or from other indications, that your oppositional attitude and that of your similarly minded friends, and your oppositional aims, were known in authoritative circles abroad?

SCHACHT: I do not wish to repeat anything; I merely want to point out that I have already stated repeatedly here that I continually discussed the situation in Germany—thus also my own position—with my friends abroad—not only with Americans, Englishmen, and Frenchmen but also with neutrals—and I would like to add one more thing; foreign broadcasting stations did not tire at all of speaking constantly about Schacht’s opposition to Hitler. My friends and family received a shock whenever information on this subject transpired in Germany.

DR. DIX: When did your attempts to overthrow the Hitler government begin?

SCHACHT: As early as 1937 I tried to determine which groups in Germany one might rely upon in an attempt to remove the Hitler regime. Unfortunately in the years 1935, 1936, and 1937, I got to know that all those circles in which I had placed my hope were failing, namely the scientists, the educated middle class, and the leaders of economy.

I need only mention that the scientists permitted themselves to listen to the most nonsensical National Socialist lectures without opposing them in the least. I call attention to the fact that when the economic leaders saw that I was no longer a figure in economy, they disappeared from my anteroom and thronged into that of Göring. In a word, one could not rely upon these circles. Consequently, one could depend only on the generals, on the military, because according to my conception at the time, one could certainly count on an armed resistance even by the SS bodyguard.

Therefore, as has been stated here—and I do not want to pursue it further—I tried at first to contact such generals as Kluge, for instance, merely in order to ascertain whether among the military there were people with whom one could speak openly. And this first occasion led me to a great many generals whom I contacted in the course of time.

DR. DIX: That was then in the year 1937; now we come to 1938, still limiting ourselves by what Gisevius has already said, merely touching on it briefly and confirming it. By the way, were you in any way directly or indirectly involved in the negotiations at Godesberg or Munich?

SCHACHT: In no way.

DR. DIX: Now we continue with your political work, aiming at a revolt. Is Gisevius’ account of the year 1938 correct or is there something to be added to it?

SCHACHT: Gisevius’ statement is complete and reliable.

DR. DIX: That also applies to the attempt at a _coup d’état_ in the late summer of 1938?

SCHACHT: Yes.

DR. DIX: Then came the war. Did you fold your arms after war broke out?

SCHACHT: No; throughout the entire war I pleaded with every general whom I could contact. I used the same arguments which I have just mentioned in connection with the prospective interview with Brauchitsch; therefore, it was not merely theory, but I actually spoke to all these generals.

DR. DIX: Was not a visit to General Hoeppner significant in this connection?

SCHACHT: In 1941 I tried not only to get in touch with General Hoeppner but in a whole series of conversations I attempted to make him take action. Hoeppner was perfectly willing and prepared and later he too, unfortunately, lost his life as a consequence of 20 July 1944.

In the year 1942—and this has not been mentioned here up to now, because Gisevius did not participate—I tried again to mobilize General Von Witzleben to renewed activity. I went on a special journey to Frankfurt-on-the-Main, where he had his headquarters at that time, and Von Witzleben proved as ever to be completely resolved to act, but he told me that, of course, he could only do so if he again received a command at the front. Then I...

DR. DIX: At that time Frau Strünck, who knew of these matters, was in Frankfurt?

SCHACHT: She knew of these things and can confirm them.

DR. DIX: Perhaps I may tell the Tribunal at this point that Frau Strünck was granted me as a witness and she was here. In order to save time, however, I have decided to dispense with this witness since she could make only cumulative statements on what Gisevius has already said and I do not think it is necessary. Schacht himself has just stated the only piece of information which she could have added, namely this trip, this special journey to Frankfurt to Von Witzleben. On the strength of experience the Tribunal will itself know that in the course of a revolutionary movement, stretching over years such as this, many journeys are made and in respect to this particular journey it is not important to submit special evidence. In order to save time, therefore, I have decided to dispense with the testimony of Frau Strünck. Excuse me, I merely wanted to say this now. Then there is the next...

SCHACHT: May I perhaps say one more thing? I of course always participated in the conversations—mentioned by Gisevius here—with the other generals, that is the group of Beck, Fromm, Olbricht, _et cetera_. These things did not come about for some time on account of the negotiations abroad for which the generals were always waiting. I think that enough has been said here about this topic and I need not make further report on it. I come then to one last point, which does not become apparent from Gisevius’ statement but about which an affidavit from Colonel Gronau will be submitted here. I can mention it quite briefly in order to save time. Naturally, together with the group of Beck, Goerdeler, my friend Strünck, Gisevius, and others I was completely informed of, and initiated into, the affair of 20 July. However, and I think it was mutual, we told each other whenever possible only those things which the other absolutely had to know, in order not to embarrass the other man, should he at any time be submitted to the tortures of the Gestapo. For that reason, apart from being in touch with Beck, Goerdeler, Gisevius, and Strünck, _et cetera_, I had another connection with the generals who were at the head of this revolt and that was the General of Artillery Lindemann, one of the main participants in the coup, who unfortunately also lost his life later.

DR. DIX: Perhaps it would be proper—and also more intelligible in connection with your participation in 20 July—if I read a brief part of Colonel Gronau’s affidavit which refers to Lindemann.

[_Turning to the Tribunal._] It is Exhibit Number 39 of our document book, Page 168 of the German text and Page 176 of the English text. I shall omit the first part of the affidavit, but I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it; essentially it contains only matters on which evidence has already been given. I shall read only the part that deals with 20 July. It begins on Page 178 of the English text and on Page 170 of the German text, and I start with Question 5:

“Question 5) You brought Schacht and General Lindemann together. When was that?

“Answer 5) In the fall of 1943, for the first time in years, I again saw General Lindemann, my former school and regiment comrade. While discussing politics I told him that I knew Schacht well, and General Lindemann asked to be introduced to him, whereupon I established the connection.

“Question 6) What did Lindemann expect from Schacht, and what was Schacht’s attitude toward him?

“Answer 6) The taking up of political relations with foreign countries following a successful attempt at revolt. He promised his future co-operation. At the beginning of 1944 Lindemann made severe reproaches that the generals”—that should read “he severely reproached Lindemann”; it is incorrectly copied here—“because the generals were hesitating so long. The attempt at revolt would have to be made prior to the landing of the Allies.”

“Question 7) Was Lindemann involved in the attempted assassination of 20 July 1944?

“Answer 7) Yes, he was one of the main figures.

“Question 8) Did he inform Schacht of the details of this plan?

“Answer 8) Nothing about the manner in which the attempt was to be carried out; he did inform him, however, of what was to happen thereafter.

“Question 9) Did Schacht approve the plan?

“Answer 9) Yes.

“Question 10) Did Schacht put himself at the disposal of the military in the event of a successful attempt?

“Answer 10) Yes.

“Question 11) Were you arrested after 20 July 1944?

“Answer 11) Yes.

“Question 12) How were you able to survive your imprisonment?

“Answer 12) By stoically denying complicity.”

Now, we have left the years 1941 and 1942 and to explain the Putsch in logical sequence we reached the year 1944, something that could not be avoided, but we must now go back again to the year 1941. You have already mentioned, in passing, the efforts made abroad. In 1941 you were in Switzerland. Did you make any efforts in that direction there?

SCHACHT: Every time I went abroad I talked at length to my foreign friends and again and again looked for some way by which one might shorten the war and begin negotiations.

DR. DIX: In this connection, the Fraser letter is of importance. I think the Fraser letter and the way it was smuggled into Switzerland has been sufficiently discussed by the witness Gisevius. I have on two occasions stated the contents briefly, once when the translation was discussed and again during the discussion on the admissibility of the letter as evidence before the Court. I do not think I need do it here nor that I need read it. I should merely like to submit it. It is Exhibit 31, on Page 84 of the German and Page 91 of the English text. And—I say this now, we shall discuss it later—the same applies to the article which appeared this year in the _Basler Nachrichten_ and which deals with a conversation which an American had with Schacht recently. I shall not read that either since I have already stated the main points of its contents. I submit it as Exhibit Number 32, Page 90 of the German text and Page 99 of the English text. I might point out that this article has already been the subject of certain accusations made during the cross-examination of Gisevius by the representative of the Soviet Prosecution.

GEN. RUDENKO: I should like to raise one objection in regard to Document 32; this is an article about Dr. Schacht and his ideas by an unknown writer describing his conversations with an unknown economist. The article in question was published in the _Basler Nachrichten_ on 14 January 1946, that is, when the present Trial was already well under way, and I cannot consider that this article can be presented in evidence with regard to Schacht’s case.

DR. DIX: I might—may I, before the Tribunal decides, say something very briefly?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.

DR. DIX: The article has already been admitted as evidence. We have discussed it, and the Tribunal approved the article as evidence. The Tribunal can, of course, revoke that decision. I think, for me it would...

THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal has always made it clear that the allowance of these documents is a provisional allowance and that when the document is actually offered in evidence, they will then decide the relevancy or its admissibility, rather, and its relevancy.

DR. DIX: That is quite beyond doubt. I merely wanted to point out that we have already discussed the question once before. Of course, the Tribunal can today reject the document. I shall...

THE PRESIDENT: The allowance is provisional. It is not a question of the Tribunal’s reversing its previous decision. The previous decision was merely provisional, and the question of admissibility now comes up for decision.

DR. DIX: It is quite clear to me, Your Lordship. I am merely surprised at the objection raised by the Soviet Prosecution, inasmuch as the representative of the Soviet Delegation himself referred to that article in his observations during the cross-examination of the witness Gisevius. It is true, he did not submit it to the Tribunal, but he referred to it in his observations to the witness Gisevius. However, if the Tribunal has the slightest objections to allowing the article as documentary evidence, then I shall ask permission to leave it. I will then—and I think I may—ask the witness Schacht whether it is true that in 1941 he had a conversation with an American who was a professor of national economy, a conversation which dealt with the possibility of peace. I leave it to the Tribunal. For me, it is no—I thought it would be simpler, if I submitted the article.

THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko, as you have raised the objection to this document, what have you to say about the point that Dr. Dix makes that you used the document yourself in cross-examination?

GEN. RUDENKO: Mr. President, we did not use this document in the cross-examination of the witness Gisevius. An explanatory question was asked in order to reach a decision on this point and I particularly emphasize...

THE PRESIDENT: Will you say that again? I did not understand you.

GEN. RUDENKO: I say, that we did not use this document during the cross-examination of the witness Gisevius, but we did ask an explanatory question in order that when the document was presented by Dr. Dix, we could object to it as being of no probative value. I especially...

THE PRESIDENT: But did you not put the contents of the document to Gisevius? I do not remember. What I want to know is did you not put the contents of the document?

GEN. RUDENKO: No, no, we did not submit the contents, and we did not discuss the substance of the document. We merely asked a question—did the witness Gisevius know about the article in the _Basler Nachrichten_ of 14 January 1946? That was the question, and the witness answered that it was known to him.

DR. DIX: May I say one more thing? It appears to me that the Soviet Delegation does not desire to have the article submitted as evidence. I therefore withdraw it as evidence. And since I have no due reasons to the contrary, no factual reason to the contrary, 1 can certainly fulfill this wish of the Soviet Delegation. I would like the Tribunal to consider the matter as settled.

May I now put my question?

[_Turning to the defendant._] Well, you had conversations in Switzerland?

SCHACHT: Yes.

DR. DIX: What was the subject of these conversations, in broad outlines, and with whom did you have them?

SCHACHT: This article, which has just been discussed...

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: First, Your Honor, may I interpose an objection? The reason I did not join in the Soviet objection to this document was that I want to know who this economist is. I want to check this thing. There are very peculiar circumstances about this document, and I object to his retelling a conversation with an unknown economist. All I ask is that he identify time and place and person with whom he had his conversation, so that we can do a little verifying of this effort to get something before the Tribunal that did not appear until 1946.

DR. DIX: The question is now being given a significance which its comparative triviality really does not merit. I shall, therefore, dispense with this question too. Please do not now refer to the conversation with the professor, and I shall leave it to the Prosecution to put the question which Mr. Justice Jackson has just mentioned during cross-examination.

Well, your conversations in Switzerland, then, excepting that with the unknown professor.

SCHACHT: Yes, I tried again and again to shorten the war and to bring about some form of mediation which I always sought for particularly through the good offices of the American President. That is all that I can say here. I do not think I need go into details.

DR. DIX: Very well. Did you in your letters to Ribbentrop and Göring—you have already mentioned Hitler—or besides, did you, during the war, state your views about the policy of the war in writing at any time? First of all, as far as Hitler was concerned.

SCHACHT: I mentioned my discussion with Hitler in February 1940. In the summer of 1941 I wrote a detailed letter to Hitler, and the witness Lammers has admitted its existence. I do not think he was asked about the contents of this letter here, or he was not allowed to talk about it. If I may come back to it; in that letter, I pointed out somewhat as follows—I shall use direct language—“You are at present at the height of your success.”—This was after the first Russian victories.—“The enemy believes that you are stronger than you really are. The alliance with Italy is rather a doubtful one, since Mussolini will one day fall and then Italy will drop out. Whether Japan can still come to your aid at all is questionable in view of Japan’s weakness in the face of America. I assume that the Japanese will not be so foolish as to wage war against America. The output of steel, for instance, in spite of approximately similar population figures, amounts to one-tenth of the American production. I do not think, therefore, that Japan will enter into the war. I now recommend you at all events to reverse foreign policy completely and to attempt with every means to conclude a peace.”

DR. DIX: Did you state your views to Ribbentrop during the war?

SCHACHT: I do not know when it was. On one occasion Herr Von Ribbentrop conveyed to me through his State Secretary, Herr Von Weizsäcker, the reproachful message that I should not indulge in defeatist remarks. That may have been in 1940 or in 1941, during one of those 2 years. I asked where I had made defeatist remarks and it appeared that I had talked to my colleague Funk and had given him extensive reasons why Germany could never win this war. I held this conviction unchangeable at all times before and during the war, even after the fall of France. I answered Ribbentrop through his State Secretary that I, as Minister without Portfolio, considered it my duty to state my opinion to a ministerial colleague in its true conception, and in this written reply I maintained the view that Germany’s economic power was not sufficient to wage this war. This letter, that is, a copy of this letter was sent both to Minister Funk and to Minister Ribbentrop through his State Secretary.

DR. DIX: I think, Your Lordship, this would be a suitable moment...

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

DR. DIX: I spoke before of 20 July. Do you recall a statement made by Hitler about you in connection with 20 July?

SCHACHT: Codefendant Minister Speer was present and told me about it. It was on 22 July 1944 when Hitler issued the order to his circle for my arrest. At that time he made derogatory remarks about me and stated that he had been greatly hindered in his rearmament program by my negative activities, and that it would have been better if he had had me shot before the war.

DR. DIX: To conclude I come to a few general collective questions. Voices were heard within the country, and also abroad—and even the Prosecution, although recognizing your intellectual capacities and the services you rendered, appears to consider it also—that it was incomprehensible that a man as clever as you did not recognize the true nature, the real intentions of Hitler in time. I would like you to state your position with regard to that accusation.

SCHACHT: I should like very much to have known the gentlemen who are now judging me, at a time when it might have been of use. These are the people who always know afterwards what ought to have been done before. I can only state that first of all, from 1920 until the seizure of power by Hitler, I tried to influence the nation and foreign countries in a way which would have prevented the rise and seizure of power by a Hitler. I warned the country to be thrifty but I was not heeded. I repeatedly warned the foreign nations to develop an economic policy which would enable Germany to live. I was not heeded, although as it now appears, I was considered a clever and foresighted man. Hitler came to power because my advice was not followed. The German people were reduced to great economic need and neither...

GEN. RUDENKO: Mr. President. For 2 days now we have been listening to lengthy explanations on the part of the Defendant Schacht, and I rather think that the explanations which have just been given by the Defendant Schacht are not definite answers to questions concerned with the Indictment brought against him, but mere speeches. I consider that they will only prolong the Trial.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the Tribunal is, I think, fully apprised with the case on behalf of Defendant Schacht. They don’t want to stop him putting forward his defense fully, but they would be glad if you could make it as short as possible and if he could make it as short as possible.

DR. DIX: My Lord, I am certain that I shall be through by the recess, and perhaps even before the recess; but I beg you to bear in mind that the defendant is accused of having assisted in the seizure of power. The question arises, how was it that...

THE PRESIDENT: I wasn’t ruling that this evidence was inadmissible. I was only asking you to get on with it as quickly as you could.

DR. DIX: Very well. Dr. Schacht, please continue and try to comply with the suggestions of the representative of the Soviet Prosecution as far as possible.

SCHACHT: As briefly as possible. I will not go into detail; I will merely state that due to the collapse of 1918 and the unsatisfactory conditions of the Versailles Treaty, Germany was faced with a severe depression. The democratic parties, which had a firm hold on the regime at that time, were not able to improve the situation; and the other nations did not know what policy to take towards Germany. I do not reproach any one; I merely state facts. Consequently, in this state of depression, Hitler received a larger majority in the Reichstag than had ever been the case since the formation of the Reich.

Now, I ask the people who, although silent at the time, can tell me now what I should have done; I ask them what they would have done. I have stated that I was against a military regime, that I wanted to avoid a civil war, and that, in keeping with democratic principles, I saw only the one possibility: To allow the man to lead the government once he had come to power. I said further that from the moment I realized this I tried to participate in the government, not with the intention of supporting this man in his extremist ideas, but to act as a brake and, if possible, to direct his policies back into normal channels.

DR. DIX: Then there came a time later when you recognized the dangers, when you yourself suffered under the unbearable conditions of terror and of suppressed opinion, so that perhaps this question is pertinent and admissible: Why did you not emigrate?

SCHACHT: Had it been only a question of my personal fate, nothing would have been simpler, especially since, as we have heard before, I would have been offered that opportunity and it would have been made easy for me. It was not merely a question of my own welfare; but as I had devoted myself to the public interest since 1923, it was the question of the existence of my people, of my country. I know of no instance in history where emigrants were of help to their own nation. Of course, I speak of those emigrants who leave of their own free will, not those that have been expelled. It was not the case in 1792, at the time of the French Revolution; it was not the case in 1917, during the Russian Revolution; and it was not the case at the time of the National Socialist revolution which we witnessed. To sit in a safe harbor abroad and to write articles which no one reads in the home country...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, we don’t want a historical lecture, do we?

DR. DIX: I believe we can stop here. He merely wanted to state why he did not emigrate. [_Turning to the defendant._] You have been understood.

SCHACHT: Thank you.

DR. DIX: In the course of these proceedings, either in a letter or in a poem—I do not know which at the moment—there was some mention of your thoughts on the possibility of dying a martyr’s death; whether it would have served the cause of peace and the German nation, if you had done more than you did; if you had sacrificed your life...

SCHACHT: I think that you are referring to a quotation from one of my notes, which a representative of the American Prosecution read here, in which I spoke of the silence of death.

DR. DIX: Yes.

SCHACHT: If I had sacrificed myself, it would not have been of the slightest use because the circumstances of my sacrifice would never have become known. Either I would have disappeared in some prison or I would have died there, and no one would have known whether I was alive or not; or I would have been the victim of a planned accident, and it would not have been possible to become a martyr. Martyrs can be effective only if their martyrdom becomes known to the public.

DR. DIX: May I ask for the attention of the Tribunal for a moment? Yesterday I was denied a question concerning the social attitude of the diplomatic corps and its influence on men like Schacht, for instance. The question which I want to put now is not the same question; otherwise I would not put it. But it has nevertheless...

THE PRESIDENT: The objection that I made was to the use of the word “attitude,” because I don’t see how witnesses can give evidence about the attitude of a corps. I said I think especially that the fact that the diplomatic corps were present at the Party rally might be given in evidence, but I said that the word “attitude” was far too general. What is it you want to put now?

DR. DIX: Yesterday, the question which I framed in the following manner was denied: “How was Schacht influenced by the collective attitude of the diplomatic corps?” That question was denied, and that concludes the matter. Now, I should like first to clarify the matter because I do not want to create the impression of smuggling into the proceedings a question which may raise the same objections. On the one hand, it is essential for my line of defense to show that people from abroad with judgment, who were above being suspected of wanting to prepare for an aggressive war, had the same attitude toward the regime as Schacht had. On the other hand, it is one of the strong points of my defense to show that the work of these people in their opposition was not only not supported by foreign countries but was actually made more difficult. That is the _thema probandum_ that is important for me, and on this theme—but please, Herr Schacht, do not answer before I have received the permission of the Tribunal—this theme...

THE PRESIDENT: State exactly what the question is.

DR. DIX: Yes, I will put the question now. According to my notes I intended to refer to the tokens of honor, which the Nazi regime received from abroad, and to the representatives and numerous state visits paying honor to the regime, which have already been mentioned here. I wanted to ask the defendant what influence these frequent marks of great honor had on the work and aims of this group of conspirators. However, since that question is very similar to the one that has been rejected—and I prefer to make my objections myself rather than to have them made to me—I wanted to submit the question to the Tribunal first and make sure that it is admissible.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the question being: “What effect did the recognition of the Nazi regime from abroad have upon the group of conspirators with whom the Defendant Schacht was in contact?” That is the question, is it not? Well, that question, as the Tribunal thinks, you may put.

DR. DIX: It is admissible if “Anerkennung” is translated correctly as “honor”—honor, not recognition in the sense of recognition of a government in diplomatic official language, but honor, respect. It is a difficulty of translation and I do not want a misunderstanding—may I put to him, first, the individual official visits which I have noted, so that he can answer the question? May I do that?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you may; actual visits?

DR. DIX: Yes. The list will not be complete.

[_Turning to the defendant._] I remind you that in 1935, the delegate of the Labor Party, Alan Hartwood...

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that you ought to put the question in the general way in which I put it to you, and not go into details of each visit or the details of each number of visits.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If Your Honor pleases, I want to object to it as generalities, because it already appears that the United States did not participate in this and I tried to keep the European politics out of this case, and this is the entering wedge. Now, I don’t want to get into this sort of thing. I think it is entirely irrelevant that some foreigner, deceived by the appearance which the Defendant Schacht was assisting in putting up, didn’t start a war earlier. This thing is entirely irrelevant. The United States has desired to keep this sort of thing out of this case because it is endless if we go into it. It seems to me, if Herr Schacht wants to put the responsibility for his conduct on some foreigner, that foreigner should be named. He has already said that the United States representatives, Mr. Messersmith and Mr. Dodd, had no part in it because they were always against them. Now, it gets into a situation here which seems to me impossible before this Tribunal, and I cannot understand how it constitutes any defense for mitigation for Schacht to show that the foreign powers maintained intercourse with Germany even at a period of its degeneration.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks the question is relevant but should be put without detail.

DR. DIX: I will put the question without detail, and I would like to say that I cannot, of course, speak of myself and America in the same breath; but I, too, am trying to avoid foreign politics. However, my question does not concern foreign politics.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Here is the one question: What influence did the honors which were showered upon the Nazi regime by foreign countries, in a manner well known to you, have on the work of your group of conspirators?

SCHACHT: Throughout the years from 1935, up to and including 1938, numerous statesmen from almost all other nations came to Berlin to visit Hitler, including some crowned heads. From America, for instance, there was Under Secretary of State Phillips.

DR. DIX: Do not mention any names.

SCHACHT: I said that only because names were expressly mentioned here. It is not limited to Europe. I do not intend to make any political explanations, I merely say that there were so many visitors, which meant not only recognition but respect for Hitler, that this man appeared a very great man in the eyes of the German people. I still remember that in 1925, I believe, the King of Afghanistan, Amanullah, appeared in Berlin. He was the first foreigner to visit the Social Democratic Government, and there was a celebration because at last a great man from another country had visited us. In the case of Hitler, starting with 1935 there was one visitor after another; and Hitler went from one foreign political success to another, which made it extremely difficult to enlighten the German people and made it impossible to work for that enlightenment within the German nation.

DR. DIX: And now, two final questions.

You have heard the speech by the British Attorney General Shawcross, who said that there should have been a point where the servants of Hitler refused to follow him. We want to accept that point of view, and I ask you: Do you believe that you yourself acted in accord with that postulate of the leader of the British Delegation?

SCHACHT: I not only accept it, but I fully approve of it. From the very moment when I recognized what a harmful individual Hitler was, what a threat to world peace, I broke with him, not only secretly, but publicly and personally.

DR. DIX: So you consider that when you realized the truth you did everything humanly possible to try and save humanity from the disaster of this war and bring it to an end, once it had started.

SCHACHT: I know of no one in Germany who would have done more in that respect than I did. I warned against excessive armament. I impeded, and if you like, sabotaged effective armament through my economic policy. I resigned from the Ministry of Economics against the will of Hitler; I publicly protested to Hitler against all the abuses of the Party; I continuously warned people abroad and gave them information; I attempted to influence the policy of other nations with respect to the colonial question in order to achieve a more peaceful atmosphere. Credits for continued armaments...

THE PRESIDENT: I think we have heard this more than once, you know.

DR. DIX: Yes.

SCHACHT: May I be permitted one sentence: I blocked Hitler’s credits and I finally tried to remove him.

DR. DIX: Gentlemen, I am now at the end of my presentation of evidence for Schacht’s case, and I have only one request. During the last few days, I have received a large number of letters and also affidavits from well-known people who know Schacht. I will examine them; and if I should decide that any of the affidavits are relevant, I will get in touch with the Prosecution and discuss with them whether they have any objection to having them translated, so that we can perhaps submit them to the Tribunal—not to have them read, but merely to have them put in evidence. May I request that I be granted this right.

At the end of my entire presentation, I will briefly submit my documents; this has been only partially done.

THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other defendants’ counsel wish to ask any questions?

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I have only a few questions to put to Dr. Schacht.

How long have you known Herr Von Neurath, Dr. Schacht?

SCHACHT: I cannot state the exact year, but at any rate for a very long time; for many, many years.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: For some time, for about 4 years, you were both colleagues as ministers in the government. During that time, did you have any contact with him other than in purely official capacity?

SCHACHT: Unfortunately not enough, but of course I saw him from time to time. I would have liked to have seen him more often.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: But from conversations with him, or from what you heard about him, you certainly formed an opinion about his political views.

SCHACHT: I was well acquainted with his views.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: And what was the trend of his political thought?

SCHACHT: I had the impression that basically Von Neurath believed in a conservative policy, but was open to conviction where progressive measures were concerned. He was above all in favor of peaceful international co-operation.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Do you consider it possible, or do you have any reason to believe, that under certain circumstances he would also resort to belligerent methods or that he would even consider them, if the peaceful understanding which he desired was quite impossible?

SCHACHT: According to my understanding of Neurath, I think that he was entirely averse to any aggressive policy.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: You witnessed the various...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Lüdinghausen, will you kindly put the earphones on, the Tribunal thinks these questions are not questions which can properly be put because of their general nature.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Did you have the impression that in everything that he achieved, particularly in the occupation of the Rhineland, Herr Von Neurath...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Lüdinghausen, this is not a proper question to put to a witness, “Did you have an impression about him?” You can ask him what he said and what he did; what did Von Neurath do and what did he say?

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes; then I will not put this question. I have only one last question.

[_Turning to the defendant._] You know that on the 4th of February 1938 Von Neurath resigned as Foreign Minister. What did you and your immediate circle say to the resignation of Von Neurath from foreign politics? What impression did it make upon you?

SCHACHT: I believe I have already said in the course of the interrogation that I considered Von Neurath’s resignation a very bad sign, for it meant departing from the previous policy of understanding in foreign politics.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Any other defendants’ counsel want to ask questions?

Does the Prosecution desire to cross-examine?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think it might save time, Your Honor, if we could take our recess at this time. It is a little early, I know, but it takes some time to arrange our material.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.

[_A recess was taken._]

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Dr. Schacht, according to the transcript of the testimony at Page 8698 (Volume XII, Page 460), you said that in 1938 you told a certain lady while you were dining: “My dear lady, we have fallen into the hands of criminals. How could I ever have suspected that!” You recall that testimony?

SCHACHT: It was not I who gave that testimony; it came from an affidavit submitted here by my Defense Counsel, but it is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am sure you want to help the Tribunal by telling us who those criminals were.

SCHACHT: Hitler and his confederates.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, you were there; you know who the co-operators were. I am asking you to name all that you put in that category of criminals with Hitler. Hitler, you know, is dead.

SCHACHT: Mr. Justice, it is very difficult for me to answer that question fully because I do not know who was in that close conspiracy with Hitler. The Defendant Göring has told us here that he considered himself one of that group. There were Himmler and Bormann, but I do not know who else there was in the small circle of men who were trusted by Hitler.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You have only named three men. Let me put it this way: You named four men criminals, three of whom are dead and one of them you say admitted...

SCHACHT: I can add one more, if you will permit me. I assume that the Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop was also always acquainted with Hitler’s plans. I must assume that; I cannot prove it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Whom else did you include when you were talking to the lady?

SCHACHT: On that evening I did not mention any names.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But whom did you have in mind? You surely were not making charges against your own people, who were in charge of your own government, without having definite names in mind.

SCHACHT: I have taken the liberty of mentioning the names to you.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Are those all?

SCHACHT: I do not know, but I assume that there were more. I would add without hesitation, Heydrich. But I cannot know with whom...

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Heydrich is a dead man.

SCHACHT: I regret that these people are dead, I would have liked to see them die some other way; but...

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, are those the only people that you included?

SCHACHT: I have no proof of the fact that there was anyone else in this conspiracy about whom I could say that there is proof that he was a conspirator.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, Dr. Schacht, at the time the Nazis seized power you had a world-wide acquaintance and very great standing as a leading banker in Germany and in the world, did you not?

SCHACHT: I do not know whether that is so, but if that is your opinion I do not wish to contradict you.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, at first you would admit that? Wouldn’t you?

SCHACHT: I do not contradict.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And yet as we understand it, you made public appearances in Germany before the German people in support of the Nazi regime, alongside of characters such as Streicher and Bormann.

SCHACHT: Mr. Justice, I have taken the liberty of explaining here that until July 1932 I did not in any way come forward publicly for Hitler or the Party and that, on the contrary, in America for instance, I warned the people against Hitler. At that time I—the name Bormann was, of course, unknown to me at the time; and Streicher’s paper, _Der Stürmer_, was just as revolting to me before that time as afterwards. I did not think that I had anything in common with Herr Streicher.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I didn’t either, but that is why I wondered about your appearing with him publicly before the German people after 1933 when the Nazi regime was consolidating its power. You did that, didn’t you?

SCHACHT: What did I do, Mr. Justice?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I spoke of your appearances, publicly, before the German people with Streicher and Bormann in support of the Nazi program after the seizure of power.

SCHACHT: I do not think so. I was never seen publicly with Herr Streicher or with Mr. Bormann—certainly not at that time. It is quite possible that he attended the same Party rallies as I, or that I sat next to him; but, at any rate, in 1933 I was never seen publicly either with Streicher or with Bormann.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I ask to have you shown the photograph from the Hoffmann collection, marked Number 10. You have no difficulty recognizing yourself in that, do you?

SCHACHT: No.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And on the right sits Bormann?

SCHACHT: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And next to him the Minister of Labor?

SCHACHT: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And on the other side of you is Hitler?

SCHACHT: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And beyond him, Streicher?

SCHACHT: I do not recognize him; I do not know whether it is Streicher, but perhaps it is.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I will offer the photograph in evidence. And perhaps the identification will be sufficient.

And also Frick is in that picture?

SCHACHT: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: This becomes Exhibit Number USA-829.

[_Turning to the defendant._] I will ask to have you shown...

THE PRESIDENT: Justice Jackson, what is the date of that photograph?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: There is no date given on the photographs. Perhaps the defendant can tell us.

SCHACHT: Mr. Justice, you said that in 1933 I had permitted myself to be seen publicly with Streicher and Bormann as a representative of the National Socialist Party; and I should like to know, therefore, where this picture was taken and when. I cannot identify it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I asked you about after 1933. Schacht, do you deny this is a photograph...

SCHACHT: No, no. By no means, I am merely asking when it was taken. I do not think this refers to 1933 or 1934.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: When was it, if you want to tell us?

SCHACHT: I do not know; I cannot tell you.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will show you another photograph—two photographs, Numbers 3 and 4. Number 3 shows you marching with Dr. Robert Ley among others.

SCHACHT: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Number 4 shows you entering the hall, marching, and giving the Nazi salute.

SCHACHT: Yes, yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And Ley the man who suppressed the labor unions of Germany?

SCHACHT: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And those are correct photographs, are they not?

SCHACHT: Certainly.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I offer them in evidence under Exhibit Number USA-829.

[_Turning to the defendant._] I will show you photographs marked Numbers 1 and 2 and 6—and 7. Now let us look at Number 1. Do you recall where that was taken?

SCHACHT: Yes—one moment, if it is the number I have here—yes, just a minute.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Where was it taken?

SCHACHT: I think Number 1 is a picture from the Reich Chancellery, if I am not mistaken.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Among the persons appearing in Number 1 is Frick?

SCHACHT: Gürtner, Goebbels, Popitz, Schacht, Papen, Göring, and others, and Hitler in the middle.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And Neurath, do you recognize?

SCHACHT: Neurath. Yes; I think he is immediately on Hitler’s right, in the background.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Goebbels?

SCHACHT: Yes, I said Goebbels.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You identify Funk as present in the picture, at the extreme right, only a part of his body showing.

SCHACHT: Who is that?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Funk, the Defendant Funk.

SCHACHT: No, that is Göring.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Back of Göring and back of Neurath.

SCHACHT: I beg your pardon. Perhaps I have a different picture. I beg your pardon. That is Number 2. On Number 2 I see from left to right: Popitz, Rust, Göring, Neurath, Hitler, Blomberg, Schacht, Gürtner, Krosigk, Eltz von Rübenach, and then at the very back on the right, Funk.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And let us take Number 7. Who do you identify as your company in that photograph?

SCHACHT: On the extreme left, my late wife; then the Vice President of the Reichsbank, Dreyse, Hitler, and myself. There is an adjutant of Hitler, and the heavy-set man on the right—I do not know who he is.

This is a photograph taken when the foundation of the new Reichsbank building was laid in 1934. Directly behind me, on the right, is Blomberg.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And Number 6?

SCHACHT: One moment. That is the picture where I am walking alongside Hitler, is that right? That is Hitler’s entrance in my company, on the occasion when the foundation of the new Reichsbank building was laid. Behind me, or rather behind Hitler, you can see Geheimrat Vocke, who is to appear as a witness here tomorrow, and several other gentlemen from the directorate of the Reichsbank.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I offer the remaining photographs, 1, 6, and 7 in evidence under the same number.

So that it would appear, Dr. Schacht, that a good deal of your present company was the company that started off with you in 1933 and 1934?

SCHACHT: Is that a question?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, is that not true?

SCHACHT: No. If you had photographed me with my other acquaintances just as often, the number would be 10 times as great.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You testified—and I refer to Page 8650 of the record (Volume XII, Page 424)—that there were reasons of principle why you did not become a Party member and that Party membership would not be compatible with your principles?

SCHACHT: That is right.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you also testified—I refer to Page 8692 of the record (Volume XII, Page 455)—that from 1932 to the 30th of January 1933—I am quoting you, “I have not written or spoken a single word publicly for Hitler.”

SCHACHT: I think that is right, if you emphasize “publicly.”

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You must emphasize “publicly”?

SCHACHT: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I want yet to ask you about the next thing. You also said:

“I have never helped in any way to exert influence in favor of Hitler through discussions with any of the competent gentlemen: Hindenburg, Meissner, _et cetera_; and I did not participate in any way in the appointment of Hitler to Reich Chancellor.”

Is that correct?

SCHACHT: That is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, are there any words that we have to emphasize in that in order to understand it correctly?

SCHACHT: No, in reference to Hitler’s becoming Chancellor, please note I said, “competent men.”

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I don’t just know what you mean by that, but I’ll give you a chance to explain.

SCHACHT: Yes. When I say “competent,” I mean those people who could decide as to who was to be Chancellor. Of course, I did say that Hitler would be Chancellor and must become Chancellor, and I expressed those convictions in private circles.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you say that in public?

SCHACHT: No, I said that only in a circle of my friends, business acquaintances, and such like.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I want to quote you a statement by Von Papen:

“When I was Chancellor of Germany, in 1932, Schacht came to see me in July or August while I was at home. He said, ‘here’s a very intelligent man.’—It was in the presence of my wife and I have never forgotten it.—He said, ‘Give him your position. Give it to Hitler. He is the only man who can save Germany.’”

Did you say that or didn’t you?

SCHACHT: I do not know whether I said that he was the only man who could save Germany, but I did tell him that Hitler would and must become Chancellor. But that was in August or July of 1932, after the July elections; and it has nothing to do with Hitler’s nomination, which did not take place until after the Schleicher Cabinet, about which I have been examined here.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, Dr. Schacht, I just asked you if you had not testified that you had nothing to do with his coming to the Chancellorship and you said...

SCHACHT: That is the truth.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: ...and it is here said that you asked Von Papen to give the place to him and...

SCHACHT: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: ...and do you contend—and I want you to say anything you want to about this—do you contend that that was not aiding Hitler to the Chancellorship?

SCHACHT: I do not know whether it was aiding Hitler. In the course of my examination here, I have been asked whether I had exerted any influence in connection with Hitler’s election or his nomination for the Chancellorship in January 1933. I have given the names of Hindenburg, Meissner, and so forth, that is to say, Hindenburg’s circle. Since the beginning of November 1932, Papen was no longer Chancellor and thus he had no influence upon these matters at all. I did not talk to Papen at all during those weeks. On the contrary, after the elections of 1932, I said that it was inevitable that a man who had obtained so many votes in the Reichstag must take over the political lead.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now let me get you correctly. When you saw Hitler was going to win you joined him?

SCHACHT: No.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I’ll just make it clear what you do mean. You did not assist him until he had already accumulated more votes than any other Party in the Reichstag?

SCHACHT: I did not join Hitler when I saw that he would win, but when I had discovered that he had won.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Oh, well, I’ll accept the amendment.

You have referred to your letter to Hitler on the 29th of August 1932...

SCHACHT: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: ...in which you advised him not to put forward any detailed economic program?

SCHACHT: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You told him there was no such program on which 14 millions could agree?

SCHACHT: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And that economic policy is not a factor for building up a party?

SCHACHT: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you added that, “You can always count on me as your reliable assistant”; did you not?

SCHACHT: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And then that was after he had won?

SCHACHT: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And then on the 12th of...

SCHACHT: November.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, I just want to refer to that document as EC-456, Exhibit Number USA-773. Now, then, on the 12th of November 1932, you wrote a letter to him, in which you said, among other things, “I have no doubt that the present development of things can only lead to your becoming Chancellor.”

SCHACHT: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “It seems as if our attempt to collect a number of signatures from business circles for this purpose is not altogether in vain...”

SCHACHT: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You were collecting signatures for this purpose?

SCHACHT: Not I, but I participated.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You were assisting.

SCHACHT: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And that was Document Number EC-456.

Now, as of November 1932, a document was prepared for a large number of industrialists to sign, urging the selection of Hitler as Chancellor, in substance, was there not?

SCHACHT: I no longer remember the document, but I assume that that is the document.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And men like Schacht, Schröder, and Krupp, and a great number of industrialists signed that document, did they not?

SCHACHT: That is possible, yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it was sent to Von Hindenburg?

SCHACHT: I do not know.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, the purpose of it was to aid Hitler in obtaining the Chancellorship?

SCHACHT: That is possible.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: It is addressed to the Reich President, is it not? Document Number 3901-PS, Exhibit Number USA-837.

SCHACHT: I have not seen it; but it is probably correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, you do not deny that that occurred?

SCHACHT: I assume that it is correct. I have not seen it, but I do not doubt it at all.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then, in November of 1932 you communicated to Hitler the result of your money-raising campaign, did you not?

SCHACHT: I do not know anything about that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I’ll remind you from your own interrogation. Well, I’ll remind you first, of your testimony, in which you say that it appears that you did not plead for funds but that Göring pleaded for funds; and I ask if you did not, on the 9th of October 1945, give these answers to these questions as to events of February 1933?

SCHACHT: Events of what?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Events of February 1933.

SCHACHT: Yes, thank you very much.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Going back to 1933. This is the question:

“Prior to the time that Hitler appointed you as President of the Reichsbank, do you recall a meeting in the home of Göring?

“Answer: ‘Yes. That was a financial meeting. I have been interrogated about that several times already.’

“Question: ‘Tell me about it.’

“Answer: ‘Yes, I will. Hitler had to go to the elections on 5 March, if you will remember, and for these elections he wanted money for the campaign. He asked me to procure the money and I did. Göring called these men together and I made a speech—not a speech, for Hitler made the speech—then I asked them to write down the amounts and to subscribe for the elections, which they